The most recent nut-ball casting ethics lunacy that finds something anti-Semitic about prosthetic noses makes my brain hurt. It is such fanatic political correctness and woke “gotcha!” extremism that led to this recent post, in which I mused about owing vile radio talk show host Michael Savage an apology for condemning his claim years ago that liberalism is a mental disease.

Everything I wrote about the complaints that casting eminent non-Jewish actor Bradley Cooper as composer Leonard Bernstein and having him wear make-up (including a fake nose) to look more like Bernstein applies to the wacko criticism of casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir in “Golda” (that’s Hellen on the right above) and having her outfitted with a big nose. In fact, you could just read the Bernstein post substituting “Golda Meir” for “Leonard Bernstein” and “Helen Mirren” for “Bradley Cooper.” In fairness, Mirren requires more make-up than Cooper because she is an attractive woman, and Golda was anything but (big nose notwithstanding, Lenny was a handsome man), and it would take a prosthetic nose to make almost any actress be a credible Golda Meir on screen. Mirren is perhaps the most distinguished actress in her age range right now, and a complex and historic figure like Meir deserves no less for her film biography. Never mind, though: what matters in these days of woke madness isn’t good acting or good movies, but racial, ethnic and gender spoils, all executed with the integrity of Calvinball.

Here, for example, is writer Noah Berlatsky on CNN’s website arguing that “the movie is inevitably fodder for an ongoing discussion about whether non-Jewish performers should play Jewish roles. There have been thoughtful arguments pro and con, but the focus on who should be cast can sometimes drown out questions about what that casting is doing.”

The arguments “con” are not thoughtful but hypocritical and ridiculous, and deserving the verdict of Sidney Wang in “Murder by Death”:

Berlatsky continues:

“In “Golda,” casting Mirren — a White, internationally renowned, British actress — is a metaphor for the way the film blurs Israeli identity with a generalized White, Western identity. By doing so, it attaches Israel’s moment of crisis to a tradition of triumphalist American military films that validates the virtue of the US, of Israel and of whiteness.”

Berlatsky isn’t the only one making this argument, which doesn’t make it any more legitimate. Neither does that fact that Mirren has told the Daily Mail that the controversy was “utterly legitimate.” Mirren is obviously a weenie, but that still doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be cast as non-weenies, like Gold Meir.

Why these kinds of complaints are too silly to take seriously (or publish, but you know: CNN) can be found in most of the EA essays with the casting ethics tag; let’s see, how about this one, when Brendan Fraser and “The Whale” were criticized for not having a 600 lb actor play a 600 lb character?

What matters in movies and plays is whether a casting choice works, and according to at least one a knee -jerk progressive movie critic for a knee-jerk progressive publication like the New York Times, the casting of Mirren and Meir does. Maybe the film would have also worked if Lucy Liu or Viola Davis or Peter Dinklage were cast as Golda with the appropriate make-up and prosthetics. No one should care about casting when the illusion created is successful. It didn’t occur to Times critic Amy Nicholson to attack Mirren for not being Jewish or for wearing a fake nose because she’s not completely deranged. She properly focuses on her job as a film reviewer and does not venture into the field of DNA analysis, which in the realm of the performing arts is antithetical to the purpose of acting: convincing an audience that you are someone and something that you are not.

That the progressive herd’s escalating ideological madness is causing it to stampede in such bizarre directions ought to be considered more strong evidence (as if we needed more) that the movement is deeply, deeply flawed. I have to believe that at some time in the not-too-distant future, the fever that is The Great Stupid will break and the more intelligent survivors of it will find themselves looking back, chuckling to themselves, blushing a bit, and thinking, “Wow, did I really believe that stuff?”

The question is how much damage they will have done to the culture, society and the nation before the metaphorical light bulb switches on.