http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/meet-edmontons-new-poetic-weapon/article1154521/

“Rapper” is a subset of “poet,” just like “slam poet” is a subset of “poet” or “angsty teenager” is a subset of poet.

But I know what you’re talking about, and even if you proceed from the subdivision you’re describing (where we’re shrinking the idea of a “poet” to a very specific, bookish sort of fellow or gal – like the best-selling new poet of the last ten years or so, Jewel, when she is using a word processor rather than a microphone), I kind of have a problem with it too.

Most poetry that is written and published in English these days (as distinct from the poetry that is studied in school) is much more emotional than intellectual – just as it has been for the last 200 years or so. It’s not less emotional – just more boring.

Solid, intellectually grounded poetical technique is not the kind of thing you tend to run into more often in poets than in rappers, even if you read a lot of poetry.

The actual differences are much more aesthetic and product-oriented than artistic and process-oriented. To make the distinction, you should probably look at things like media of publication, venue of performance, accompaniment, age, race, level of formal education, editors vs. producers, etc.

But if you see somebody on the subway scribbling lines of verse into a notepad, there’s probably a pretty simple rule to distinguish poets from rappers.

If it’s a girl, she’s probably a poet.

If it’s a boy, he’s probably a rapper.

If it’s over 30, regardless of gender, he or she is probably a poet.

That will probably serve you better than trying to hash out the artistic differences between “Brooklyn (We Go Hard)” and “To Brooklyn Bridge.”

I mean, the biggest difference is when Jay-Z is rockin’ his fabulous life the way he wants to in the face of a host of haters and moral condemners on his boat, he doesn’t jump off and kill himself.

I’m feeling guardedly optimistic about the whole thing. It’s a provocation, but as Perich notes, Ferrara has a pretty good track record with provocations. And the fact that Whitaker would do a great Hyde makes actually makes him a better choice for Jekyll. They could have gone the super schematic route and cast someone like Morgan Freeman (or even a self-consciously cerebral rapper like Gift of Gab) as Jekyll… but that would make for a much LESS interesting movie, don’t you think?

Sorry.

Thinking of it from a sociological/psycological perspective, though, it makes some sense, this metacasting. Forest Whitaker is a very educated, accomplished man, so he fits the role of the educated, accomplished Jekyll. If Hyde is the id personified, 50 Cent sort of fits, too. After all, the name of his first album was “Get Rich or Die Trying,” the implication being he would do whatever necessary to get what he wants, and to hell with the consequences: he’s willing to push himself so far he’d die. His past and carnal lust for self-fulfillment may, indeed, make him perfect. Yes, in a somewhat creepy way, but it’s rather fitting, nonetheless.

I’d feel the same all-around, though, if the actor and musician were white, and for similar reasons. Say it was Tom Hanks and Kid Rock. No arguing Hanks would be able to pull off a smashing, heart-wrenching performance. And he fits: he’s smart and classy. But who does Kid Rock think he is, acting as Hanks’ opposite? Yet he also sort of fits, too, because of the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle he at least depicts himself a proponent of- his videos show just as many naked women as a rappers’ and have their share of alcohol, for one thing. So the acting potential may not say much, the image and pre-conceived notions of him make it work, at least on paper.

@Rob and John: Tupac probably *would* have been able to do both, if it absolutely must have been a wrapper. But I’m with Belinkie, I think Whitaker could do it on his own. At least Ferrara isn’t going for REAL shock with a rapper and using Lil Kim a la _Dr. Jekyll & Ms. Hyde_.

@Nick: There was also one on TV in January of last year in the UK.

@Belinkie: It’s all a facade.

On the one hand 50 cent’s a rapper, not an actor, and I can’t see him coming off as anything other than maybe a slightly larger than life version of himself. On the other hand at least he’s only playing one side of Jekyll/Hyde. Keanu Reeves doesn’t seem to have the range that it will take to convincingly play both characters. While it does seem better to have the same actor play both parts, I do think it will take a much better actor than Reeves to do it well.

Hopefully Guillermo del Toro’s version (seriously, how many Jekyll/Hyde pictures are they planning on making?) will have some better casting.

But I posit that Tupac would have been an appropriate choice for both Jekyll and Hyde.

The man’s had a long association (whether deserved or no) with shocking cinematic choices. So hearing that he’s casting an Oscar-winning actor as the civilized Dr. Jekyll and an ex-convict rapper as the unrestrained Mr. Hyde doesn’t surprise me.