|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 5, 2016 8:37:14 GMT -5
People being hired according to the merits of their capability would be ideal, but that also assumes that everyone starts on an even playing field to begin with, which, in today's parlance, would be a privileged position of not knowing or not realizing the structural disadvantages that hinder someone being cast because of their gender or skin colour. Does Hollywood only care about diversity when targeting different demographics, those who aren't straight, white, and/or male, when those who aren't those things are actually willing to part with their money to buy a product? The question people should ask is if change in the representational field of media entertainment real change? Is more diversity behind media production necessary to bring about change in the representations that matter? And even then, would we really call it change or difference if it comes at the cost of a dollar, when monetary exchange homogenizes everything? Have identities not become another commodity to be bought and sold back to the people who desire to see themselves in the very things that otherwise exclude them? These questions occur at the same time the hegemony of straightness, whiteness, and masculinity are being challenged (if not also reinforced?) as the norms by which the world operates that really aren't the norms at all. Yeah, if there's going to be a discussion about it then a conversation concerning the potential for commoditization of identity is a much more interesting and pertinent angle than, say, acting like there's some weird conspiracy or backroom dealing going when there isn't much evidence that diversity heavily drives box office numbers. I'll never get why some people seem so paranoid about the amount of power they believe vocal pro-diversity voices to have, as if studios are making decisions based on random Tumblr posts by a 17 year old. While commodification becomes a potentially scary idea, I simply feel that I've heard from enough voices in underserved communities (well, not *enough*, just enough for the purposes of forming my own opinion) to take them at their word when I hear them say they simply enjoy having representation in roles and films that, historically, they have not had nearly enough representation in, e.g. women in action movie leads, ethnic minority actors not being typecast in the same types of roles over and over again, outwardly gay characters simply being presented as regular people and not stereotypical jokes or "best gay friend" characters, etc. In the grand scheme, does that position not play into the current status quo, regardless? I suppose so, but it's still at least a positive step forward for inclusivity; if inclusivity can be achieved (likely never 100%, sadly), then there are larger structural issues that can stand to be tackled. I'd look at that from an economic/political point of view, as well, but I suppose this isn't the place for that. I'll liken it to the comic about the burning house; yes, the house may have a poor foundation, may have severe flaws, may have even been built in such a way that a fire seemed inevitable, but it's still the right thing to put the fire out as quickly as possible, then moving on to addressing the foundation, the poor quality of craftsmanship, the fire hazards, etc.
|
|
|
Post by RadcapRadsley on Aug 5, 2016 8:40:59 GMT -5
As long as you're sticking with the character and who they are, I'm fine. I do understand there are some circumstances that can work (Joan Watson, since its a different setting and time frame), but I ask some, "Why not an Ken Wantanabe as Shaft or Idris Elba as Miss Marple?" Shaft's Blackness and maleness is part of that charecter,however there are tons of black cops in film you could switch the gender or race of the charecter. I would say the lion's share of fictional charecters are one's who's gender or race could easily be changed without much altering the story say for example a crime tv procedural like CSI,NCIS etc you could make a reboot of those and switch around several of the male charecters to female and vice versa and as long as people get there 40 minutes of whodunit every week audience will be just fine. Switching the Age,Nationality or Gender to Miss Marples would be like making The Karate Kid an adult or Hannibal Lecter a vegetarian.However someone could always do a Young Miss Marples or a Mr Marples with her nephew or you could make an American version and just switch her name(Murder She Wrote).
|
|
|
Post by "Gentleman" AJ Powell on Aug 5, 2016 9:59:11 GMT -5
I hate this thread. I can't deal with this anymore. I'm legit saddened by the responses I'm reading. You're saddened & hate this thread because people disagree with your point of view? Like, I could understand if people were being racist or ignorant, but everyone's being rather rational and civil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 10:18:17 GMT -5
I get the argument that, "The integrity of the character needs to be maintained," to a point. Like how certain characters are inherently one way or another.
But - well, it just seems like that only ever works one way because the sheer volume of characters whose very essence was wrapped up in their non-white ethnicity being portrayed by a white actor is staggering. Yet that's often given a pass or just kinda forgotten about quickly because it is the status quo. More often than not it's kind of hand-waived as, "Yeah it's messed up, but that's how Hollywood works." Sure there are a handful of examples of some kind of backlash (and only very recently) but really it's a very small percentage of instances. No one's career has been torpedoed by it happening either, so let's not engage in histrionics over it.
But, artistically speaking (not even addressing the structural disadvantages at play), generally I'm an advocate of taking chances or doing new things with characters/stories more than "maintaining the integrity of the established canon from the past 25/50/100years." If your argument is, "Okay then, why not make a traditionally non-white character white?" My reply is, "That's not taking a chance or doing anything new artistically - that's just doing what's been done for decades upon decades." White-washing has been done since people started making films in America (though probably in a longer history in the American theatre). There's nothing new or interesting about that to me. Again - that's just artistically speaking, not including the politics/marketing game of movies.
In reference to the idea that "people should be hired based on their merits" for roles. I mean, hey - it's a nice idea, but that has almost never happened in Hollywood, regardless of race/gender. If that's your hill to die on, you've got a LOT of movies to boycott before you even get to race/gender swaps.
Hollywood is not and has never been a meritocracy. I mean, I hope that's not breaking news or an earth-shattering revelation. So the idea that "ugh, this is just diversity for the sake of diversity" doesn't really make sense to me as I've never seen a completely incapable actor get hired for a race/gender-swapped roll and I've seen many, many more incapable actors get hired for "race/gender appropriate" roles and absolutely shit the bed but still get work for reasons beyond their acting ability.
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Aug 5, 2016 10:47:01 GMT -5
I'm not a film junkie, my attention span usually doesn't allow me to be. But my thought is if Hollywood thought they could make money off having a black female James Bond wouldn't they do it?
It's not as if Hollywood isn't liberal and would have some bias to preventing a minority from acting in any role if they thought there was money to be made from it.
|
|
Fauxnaki
Unicron
0 Followers Club
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by Fauxnaki on Aug 5, 2016 11:06:35 GMT -5
Personally I don't want anything but a white guy playing bond. He's our main/only fictional British white male sex symbol we have. Stop appropriating my culture damn it.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,524
|
Post by FinalGwen on Aug 5, 2016 11:12:04 GMT -5
Also, just to be sure: People are aware that we're one of the first generations where we don't have white guys wearing blackface on stage to play things like Othello, right? If we're talking about why things are only changing now...
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 5, 2016 11:13:33 GMT -5
Generally I feel fictional characters should resemble their creator's original vision, at least in terms of appearance if indeed the creator detailed it or makes it clear that is their wish. As far as historical figures go, I think physical resemblance should always be applied. I don't see any need for MLK to be played by a Chinese guy, or Sojourner Truth to be played by Rebel Wilson.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Aug 5, 2016 11:19:46 GMT -5
Its wrong to whitewash characters that were supposed to be black, and its wrong to blackwash (or what have you) characters that are supposed to be white. Two wrongs do not make a right. Its a double standard. In this age of social media and people more connected through phones and the Net than ever before, there's no reason not to demand movies for black/Latino/women etc. There's a number of works out there that have minority main characters that Hollywood hasn't touched. Thankfully Black Panther is coming up, and Marvel managing to maintain quality in their movies gives me confidence that it should do very well at the box office and result and more action movies with black leads. I hate this thread. I can't deal with this anymore. I'm legit saddened by the responses I'm reading. You're saddened & hate this thread because people disagree with your point of view? Like, I could understand if people were being racist or ignorant, but everyone's being rather rational and civil. Seconded, people have been fine expressing their opinions. No one has attacked anyone, but posts like Crash has made gives off a false implication that doesn't gel with the otherwise lightened tone of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 5, 2016 11:49:01 GMT -5
Its wrong to whitewash characters that were supposed to be black, and its wrong to blackwash (or what have you) characters that are supposed to be white. Two wrongs do not make a right. Its a double standard. In this age of social media and people more connected through phones and the Net than ever before, there's no reason not to demand movies for black/Latino/women etc. There's a number of works out there that have minority main characters that Hollywood hasn't touched. Thankfully Black Panther is coming up, and Marvel managing to maintain quality in their movies gives me confidence that it should do very well at the box office and result and more action movies with black leads. You're saddened & hate this thread because people disagree with your point of view? Like, I could understand if people were being racist or ignorant, but everyone's being rather rational and civil. Seconded, people have been fine expressing their opinions. No one has attacked anyone, but posts like Crash has made gives off a false implication that doesn't gel with the otherwise lightened tone of this thread. I'm sorry if you think I'm being immature or disrupting the thread, but I'd prefer not to talk about it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 5, 2016 12:50:50 GMT -5
Its wrong to whitewash characters that were supposed to be black, and its wrong to blackwash (or what have you) characters that are supposed to be white. Two wrongs do not make a right. Its a double standard. No, it absolutely is not. Also, it isn't "two wrongs", because only one of those things is a "wrong". To equate the two is to erase history and culture and pretend that we're all starting off a blank slate.
|
|
Fauxnaki
Unicron
0 Followers Club
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by Fauxnaki on Aug 5, 2016 13:08:44 GMT -5
What are people thoughts on a black guy playing an Asian in that death note movie? I know nothing about death note so I don't really care
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Aug 5, 2016 13:26:59 GMT -5
Yeah, if there's going to be a discussion about it then a conversation concerning the potential for commoditization of identity is a much more interesting and pertinent angle than, say, acting like there's some weird conspiracy or backroom dealing going when there isn't much evidence that diversity heavily drives box office numbers. I'll never get why some people seem so paranoid about the amount of power they believe vocal pro-diversity voices to have, as if studios are making decisions based on random Tumblr posts by a 17 year old. While commodification becomes a potentially scary idea, I simply feel that I've heard from enough voices in underserved communities (well, not *enough*, just enough for the purposes of forming my own opinion) to take them at their word when I hear them say they simply enjoy having representation in roles and films that, historically, they have not had nearly enough representation in, e.g. women in action movie leads, ethnic minority actors not being typecast in the same types of roles over and over again, outwardly gay characters simply being presented as regular people and not stereotypical jokes or "best gay friend" characters, etc. In the grand scheme, does that position not play into the current status quo, regardless? I suppose so, but it's still at least a positive step forward for inclusivity; if inclusivity can be achieved (likely never 100%, sadly), then there are larger structural issues that can stand to be tackled. I'd look at that from an economic/political point of view, as well, but I suppose this isn't the place for that. I'll liken it to the comic about the burning house; yes, the house may have a poor foundation, may have severe flaws, may have even been built in such a way that a fire seemed inevitable, but it's still the right thing to put the fire out as quickly as possible, then moving on to addressing the foundation, the poor quality of craftsmanship, the fire hazards, etc. I don't know if it has to be an either/or proposition of either putting out the fire or (or before) addressing the extenuating circumstances of what caused the fire, so to speak. I take your point, but just the same, why not try for both? Maybe because of the things I like to read, for instance, I'm critical of consumer culture, even though I participate in it. And while I do buy and consume media that are socially conscious and aware, I wonder if such consciousness and awareness is a patina that obscures my very act of consumption (or makes my consumption palatable to myself). And not all media I consume are as attentive to social conditions, but then again, do I need them to be? Not always. But should they be? What is socially conscious, aware, attentive, and/or progressive for me might be too much or too little for somebody else. But identity-as-commodity isn't inherently bad, at least, if you're someone who can't find a character or creator in media who is like you, but then one day, that character or creator does come along. Regardless of whether it's 'pandering' or 'commodification of identity', why wouldn't you want to pay to see yourself in something you like when you haven't had the opportunity to do so before? Absolutely I think there should be a diversity of characters in media, moreover a diversity of creators of media. But does such a diversity change (or allow for the change of) the surface or the depth of a problem, like real-world problems that media represent, reflect, and refract? Keeping with the heat metaphor, it's like being in the fire (having no representation or ability to affect structural change about being excluded from representation whatsoever) and then jumping in the frying pan (having representation and the ability to affect structural change about being excluded from representation, albeit within the set confines and conditions that legitimate the parameters of having representation and affecting structural change as such). Of course representation matters. But how much or how little does it matter, for whom does it matter, what is the context for which it matters--these are all things that need to be explained, if not reiterated, when someone says 'representation matters', because otherwise the sentence by itself has no value or meaning. It is obvious to be critical of things with which we disagree. But perhaps it is less obvious, but no less unnecessary, to be critical of things with which we agree. So I can be supportive of a lot of changes I see when it comes to diversity and inclusivity in media, but also be critical of the hows and whys as to why such changes occur (for example, the consumer culture take).
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 5, 2016 14:13:58 GMT -5
Yeah, if there's going to be a discussion about it then a conversation concerning the potential for commoditization of identity is a much more interesting and pertinent angle than, say, acting like there's some weird conspiracy or backroom dealing going when there isn't much evidence that diversity heavily drives box office numbers. I'll never get why some people seem so paranoid about the amount of power they believe vocal pro-diversity voices to have, as if studios are making decisions based on random Tumblr posts by a 17 year old. While commodification becomes a potentially scary idea, I simply feel that I've heard from enough voices in underserved communities (well, not *enough*, just enough for the purposes of forming my own opinion) to take them at their word when I hear them say they simply enjoy having representation in roles and films that, historically, they have not had nearly enough representation in, e.g. women in action movie leads, ethnic minority actors not being typecast in the same types of roles over and over again, outwardly gay characters simply being presented as regular people and not stereotypical jokes or "best gay friend" characters, etc. In the grand scheme, does that position not play into the current status quo, regardless? I suppose so, but it's still at least a positive step forward for inclusivity; if inclusivity can be achieved (likely never 100%, sadly), then there are larger structural issues that can stand to be tackled. I'd look at that from an economic/political point of view, as well, but I suppose this isn't the place for that. I'll liken it to the comic about the burning house; yes, the house may have a poor foundation, may have severe flaws, may have even been built in such a way that a fire seemed inevitable, but it's still the right thing to put the fire out as quickly as possible, then moving on to addressing the foundation, the poor quality of craftsmanship, the fire hazards, etc. I don't know if it has to be an either/or proposition of either putting out the fire or (or before) addressing the extenuating circumstances of what caused the fire, so to speak. I take your point, but just the same, why not try for both? Maybe because of the things I like to read, for instance, I'm critical of consumer culture, even though I participate in it. And while I do buy and consume media that are socially conscious and aware, I wonder if such consciousness and awareness is a patina that obscures my very act of consumption (or makes my consumption palatable to myself). And not all media I consume are as attentive to social conditions, but then again, do I need them to be? Not always. But should they be? What is socially conscious, aware, attentive, and/or progressive for me might be too much or too little for somebody else. But identity-as-commodity isn't inherently bad, at least, if you're someone who can't find a character or creator in media who is like you, but then one day, that character or creator does come along. Regardless of whether it's 'pandering' or 'commodification of identity', why wouldn't you want to pay to see yourself in something you like when you haven't had the opportunity to do so before? Absolutely I think there should be a diversity of characters in media, moreover a diversity of creators of media. But does such a diversity change (or allow for the change of) the surface or the depth of a problem, like real-world problems that media represent, reflect, and refract? Keeping with the heat metaphor, it's like being in the fire (having no representation or ability to affect structural change about being excluded from representation whatsoever) and then jumping in the frying pan (having representation and the ability to affect structural change about being excluded from representation, albeit within the set confines and conditions that legitimate the parameters of having representation and affecting structural change as such). Of course representation matters. But how much or how little does it matter, for whom does it matter, what is the context for which it matters--these are all things that need to be explained, if not reiterated, when someone says 'representation matters', because otherwise the sentence by itself has no value or meaning. It is obvious to be critical of things with which we disagree. But perhaps it is less obvious, but no less unnecessary, to be critical of things with which we agree. So I can be supportive of a lot of changes I see when it comes to diversity and inclusivity in media, but also be critical of the hows and whys as to why such changes occur (for example, the consumer culture take). Ultimately, though, I'd argue that the actual act of inclusivity in and of itself comes with very little potential for harm. This does not mean there aren't major issues to unpack (as you point out, consumer culture and its various trappings can sometimes act as an agent of inequality...and sometimes does the opposite, all dependent on market factors), but I do believe there is little in the way of drawbacks to the act, and a lot to potentially gain, insofar as higher levels of diversity can lead to more involvement and participation in mass media from voices traditionally stuck on the outside looking in, an act that in and of itself could prove revolutionary as new perspectives are introduced into the cultural stew, so to speak. I guess in a way it's like how there were some folks who are pro gay rights yet were never comfortable with the fight over gay marriage rights; yes, taking part in legal marriage was seen as a step toward equal rights and protections under the law, but marriage was an institutional framework that many in the LGBT community already viewed as a product of a system they didn't completely trust or believe in. It's interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by crowley1986 on Aug 5, 2016 14:25:42 GMT -5
Personally I don't want anything but a white guy playing bond. He's our main/only fictional British white male sex symbol we have. Stop appropriating my culture damn it. See I don't mind if he's played by someone of a different ethnicity, but changing Bond to a female is quite ludicrous imo, how about create a female agent character
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 5, 2016 15:35:41 GMT -5
Personally I don't want anything but a white guy playing bond. He's our main/only fictional British white male sex symbol we have. Stop appropriating my culture damn it. See I don't mind if he's played by someone of a different ethnicity, but changing Bond to a female is quite ludicrous imo, how about create a female agent characterWell, even you'd kind of have to, as even a female 007 Bond would likely not get by in the film being called "James".
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Aug 5, 2016 15:51:18 GMT -5
You could make the character Jane Bond. And James can be a gender-neutral name.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Aug 5, 2016 16:14:29 GMT -5
Its wrong to whitewash characters that were supposed to be black, and its wrong to blackwash (or what have you) characters that are supposed to be white. Two wrongs do not make a right. Its a double standard. No, it absolutely is not. Also, it isn't "two wrongs", because only one of those things is a "wrong". To equate the two is to erase history and culture and pretend that we're all starting off a blank slate. Yes it is. Either way, you're risking alienating people when there is a better alternative. You're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by crowley1986 on Aug 5, 2016 16:26:31 GMT -5
You could make the character Jane Bond. And James can be a gender-neutral name. or just not leech off the bond name at all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 16:41:11 GMT -5
No, it absolutely is not. Also, it isn't "two wrongs", because only one of those things is a "wrong". To equate the two is to erase history and culture and pretend that we're all starting off a blank slate. Yes it is. Either way, you're risking alienating people when there is a better alternative. You're wrong. That is true, there is a risk of alienating people either way, so in that sense it isn't ideal. But, I mean, you at least have to acknowledge that there has been a significant systemic imbalance that resulted in "whitewashing" being significantly more prevalent and culturally accepted (with the exception of very recently). And culturally speaking, whitewashing has a more heavily weighted effect on non-whites (in America) than the reverse.
|
|