Even if they were hired because of their race, they were probably still the best actors available of that race. It's not like race and talent are mutually exclusive requirements. And if the casting was colorblind, it effectively turns them into token minorities anyway. The show is still saying, "Look how open-minded we are!" rather than just telling the story.
I suppose it looks that way if someone is not also as colorblind as the casting.
I suppose it looks that way if someone is not also as colorblind as the casting.
Yup, you caught me. I can see what someone looks like, and it bothers me if their racial phenotype is out of place in the story.
It also bothers me when a character who's supposed to be attractive isn't, when a character who's supposed to be straight-laced has tattoos and piercings, and when two characters who are supposed to be relatives look nothing alike. I think appearances matter in a visual medium. Sue me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Whether it distracts you or not is to some extent a subjective decision, but to carry the Holmes analogy further, if they cast a man to play Irene Adler, yes, it's going to distract me. If they cast a skinny guy to play Friar Tuck without explaining that he had just lost 100 lbs, yes it's going to be distracting.
I believe maintaining distinct elements of characters (general race, gender, hair color at times, etc.) is a crucial element of myth and legend. I believe that you need a better reason than a standout audition to change fundamental elements of a character.
The question is whether it's a "reimagining" or keeping "true to the original." Take for example a lot of Shakespearean plays have been redone from DiCaprio's version to several others in Japan and through out Asia that are good. Africa also has differing versions that maintain the dialogue and story. In that case or in areas where you're importing a white play into an area of a different race, the suspension of disbelief is necessary.
Overall, I do agree though that preferably if the acting is going to be true to form, then it should include people of that specific race. It really depends on the aims of the production, though. Furthermore, on the point of "it looks good enough to be real" such as people that can play different nationalities and races.
If you've ever seen a strong actor playing "out of color," the suspension carries regardless especially in theatre. The accents though I feel are the most difficult to pull off for some actors, and I greatly respect men like Hugh Laurie that can do different accents. However, actors like these tend to be rare.
Yup, you caught me. I can see what someone looks like, and it bothers me if their racial phenotype is out of place in the story.
It also bothers me when a character who's supposed to be attractive isn't, when a character who's supposed to be straight-laced has tattoos and piercings, and when two characters who are supposed to be relatives look nothing alike. I think appearances matter in a visual medium. Sue me.
I think with modern technology this is less of an issue. Looking at Battlestar between the Adamma sons and the father where Olmos had to wear contact lenses to match Bamber's eye color so they "looked related" held it together very well. I'd admit, I would like to see something outside of White Chicks, The Associate, and Mrs. Doubtfire and more serious roles where whites play blacks, blacks play whites, and ect. I feel that it would actually be good every so often to do this, and to really push acting as a profession into new areas.
If you've ever seen a strong actor playing "out of color," the suspension carries regardless especially in theatre. The accents though I feel are the most difficult to pull off for some actors, and I greatly respect men like Hugh Laurie that can do different accents.
Oh, don't even get me started. Colorblind casting mildly bugs me, but a bad accent makes me want to light kittens on fire.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If you've ever seen a strong actor playing "out of color," the suspension carries regardless especially in theatre. The accents though I feel are the most difficult to pull off for some actors, and I greatly respect men like Hugh Laurie that can do different accents.
As far as accents go, I think it's more consistency than accuracy. Watching something like Gladiator requires us to "deal" with them speaking modern English. Even in milder forms, such as in Braveheart it's unlikely that we would understand much of what was said had the language been from the period.
However, if some guy, during the movie Gladiator were to randomly start speaking Latin with subtitles, where everyone else is speaking English, the suspension of disbelief is shattered.
As far as accents go, I think it's more consistency than accuracy. Watching something like Gladiator requires us to "deal" with them speaking modern English. Even in milder forms, such as in Braveheart it's unlikely that we would understand much of what was said had the language been from the period.
However, if some guy, during the movie Gladiator were to randomly start speaking Latin with subtitles, where everyone else is speaking English, the suspension of disbelief is shattered.
The best use I ever saw of this was whenever the "main language" was English but inferred to be something else and the "other people" that spoke a different language were indeed speaking the actual language that the characters should speak relative to the story.
The worst was casting Sean Connery as an Arab with a brogue in The Wind and the Lion. It's a decent movie, but the accent was hilarious. Granted that I'm surprised Zed from Zardoz has yet to become an internet meme for the costume, but I digress.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Again, the key word is "verisimilitude". Race relations in the days of Robin Hood were such that it'd be bizarre for it not to become an issue.
Robin Hood isn't about race relations. There are lots of angles that the story of Robin Hood might have explored, but I hardly think it has to be an exact recreation of medieval england, with all it's axes of conflict and turmoil.
Now, for example, you couldn't have Amistad with white guys playing the slaves, because that's a story that is very much about race. There it's important.
When was the last time you saw a white in a traditionally nonwhite role? Probably not long after 1927. (EDIT: Okay, blackface actually stuck around for a while after that. I trust my point is still clear.)
It happens a lot. I don't think it's too big of a deal, unless there becomes a trend of exclusion, where minority actors don't get opportunities because all the roles are cast for whites.
Whether it distracts you or not is to some extent a subjective decision, but to carry the Holmes analogy further, if they cast a man to play Irene Adler, yes, it's going to distract me. If they cast a skinny guy to play Friar Tuck without explaining that he had just lost 100 lbs, yes it's going to be distracting.
I believe maintaining distinct elements of characters (general race, gender, hair color at times, etc.) is a crucial element of myth and legend. I believe that you need a better reason than a standout audition to change fundamental elements of a character.
There's fundamentally no way to resolve this disagreement, as we have no way of scientifically testing anyone's intentions.
If you don't believe the BBC, which happens to be an arm of the British government would be interested in promoting a PC agenda by remaking local myths so that they are representative of the population today, then nothing I'm going to say will convince you.
I'm not screaming tragedy, but I'm surely crying foul.
This whole thread reminds me of the campaign to get Donald Glover (African-American actor who plays Troy on Community) to play Peter Parker in the new reboot of the Spider-man franchise. I mean, if you're making the whole origin story happen today, there's no reason Peter couldn't be black- there are lots of lower-middle class, intelligent black kids, and Stan Lee gave his blessing to the idea.
But people got up in arms over the idea- people made a fuss over casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor, and yet he was probably the best part of that movie. You have to recognize that since that vast, vast majority of past literature and other artwork that tend to inspire films are often exclusively stocked with white characters, and even now it's extremely rare to have a non-white lead role, too close an adherence to "literary integrity" will reinforce the disadvantages blacks face in their cultural representation. Should a black actor not have a chance to play the hero, without having to be a "black hero"?
If you read that article, it gives a perfect example. Red in Shawshank Redemption was written as an Irishman, but they gave the role to Morgan Freeman because they decided that fact wasn't important to the story or his character. I assume if you've seen the movie you know that was a good decision.
Now, for example, you couldn't have Amistad with white guys playing the slaves, because that's a story that is very much about race. There it's important.
But here's the thing. Consider the Adams HBO miniseries. Wasn't about race. But race was a huge part of the cultural context in which it was set. So you couldn't have cast, say, Abigail Adams as black, because for John Adams to have had a black wife and that not become a major issue would have strained incredulity to the breaking point.
You see, that I don't care about. Yeah, I made a wisecrack over on the movie thread about Sif not being blonde (which actually is a plot point in one of the myths). And if I wanted to nitpick I might have said something about Thor not being redheaded. But in the Marvel Universe, they're not Scandinavian, they're aliens. This is a perfectly decent suspension-preserving explanation - if anything, it raises the question of why they look human at all.
But here's the thing. Consider the Adams HBO miniseries. Wasn't about race. But race was a huge part of the cultural context in which it was set. So you couldn't have cast, say, Abigail Adams as black, because for John Adams to have had a black wife and that not become a major issue would have strained incredulity to the breaking point.
Wow! It doesn't strike you as being totally and utterly essential for a Norse god to be at the very least, white?
disadvantages blacks face in their cultural representation.
Blacks account for 12% of the U.S. population last time I checked. The cultural representation should account for that. If it doesn't then we need
changes, but it's almost as if we're talking about 50/50.
Regarding Shawshank, Freeman was excellent in that film and it's hard to picture anyone else in that role now. There's a tad bit of a difference to me though between story and myth. Like, Superman is myth. You can't recast Kent to a different race. A guy appears in one story, though, I don't think it's a problem because you don't have the same unbelievability factor.
Oh, and we haven't gotten into the Tyler Perry films yet. Do you think Perry should start casting non-blacks? (I don't personally care, because I think it fits the setup and cultural context, but it seems to me you ought to be somewhat offended, given your stance. Unless you're of the position that the past 5,000 black actors/actresses to audition for his films "coincidentally" beat out everyone else.)
Then you're not exactly being colorblind, are you?
Did I claim I was?
Anyway, if it had been the story of a fictional 18th-Century politician, a mixed-race marriage would still have been a major headscratcher.
Such a story would almost certain involve the race relations of the time, because that was a very big deal for an 18th-Century politician. But what if it had been the story of a soldier at that time, who fought in the French and Indian War or some such war. Would it be such a big deal for that character to be black?
But what if it had been the story of a soldier at that time, who fought in the French and Indian War or some such war. Would it be such a big deal for that character to be black?
Yes. It wouldn't be impossible or anything - it's not like every black man in America was a slave or servant. But it would invite a lot of comment and prejudice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And if it didn't, that would break suspension. This is my point.
But that's very different than Robin Hood or whatever. Robin Hood doesn't mention race relations at all, so what does it matter if you've got some minority characters?
Yes. It wouldn't be impossible or anything - it's not like every black man in America was a slave or servant. But it would invite a lot of comment and prejudice.
If the story is focused on other things about the time, I don't think it matters. History is very complex, and one could spend an entire movie exploring each facet of the characters and how they fit into the social fabric of the time. That would be a terrible and boring movie, though. So, we gloss over the parts that aren't relevant, and if the story is such that race isn't relevant, then it doesn't matter who you cast.
That race matters when race matters to the story, and it doesn't when it doesn't. Complaining about the race of a character who doesn't have a particular racial identity is silly, but so is casting an actor who doesn't fit the race of a character which is defined by his or her race.
Cervid, what do you think about colorblind casting for biographies?
Regardless of whether or not it is a biography, if the race is important in the context of the characters and time period, then casting should reflect that.
If the story is focused on other things about the time, I don't think it matters. History is very complex, and one could spend an entire movie exploring each facet of the characters and how they fit into the social fabric of the time. That would be a terrible and boring movie, though. So, we gloss over the parts that aren't relevant, and if the story is such that race isn't relevant, then it doesn't matter who you cast.
The movie doesn't have to explore the issue in detail. But other characters would treat him differently. Unless maybe if he only ever interacted with very close acquaintances who happened to be open-minded for their time.
Regardless of whether or not it is a biography, if the race is important in the context of the characters and time period, then casting should reflect that.
In the time periods we're talking about, it's always important. Or at least relevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The movie doesn't have to explore the issue in detail. But other characters would treat him differently. Unless maybe if he only ever interacted with very close acquaintances who happened to be open-minded for their time.
Characters in stories are characters in stories, not real people. They don't have to be fully true to what a real person would do in every situation. I really don't think a story is obligated to explore every conflict or prejudice that would plausibly arise.
In the time periods we're talking about, it's always important. Or at least relevant.
If we're making history movies, sure. But is it always important to every story ever told about these time periods? No, it's not. There are plenty of stories set in the time that are just as compelling if you fiddle with the races of the characters.
In the time periods we're talking about, it's always important. Or at least relevant.
It doesn't seem nearly as relevant in Merlin or Robin Hood as it does for a biography of John Adams. Race simply isn't an issue in the two former cases.
It probably helps that the woman cast as Gwen is fairly light skinned. She's not so dark as to shatter the suspension of disbelief.
It doesn't seem nearly as relevant in Merlin or Robin Hood as it does for a biography of John Adams. Race simply isn't an issue in the two former cases.
Only because they've imported a conspicuously anachronistic attitude into the settings along with the conspicuously anachronistic demography. Race certainly is an issue in the medieval romances whenever "Saracens" show up (though more as a sign of foreignness and paganism than in its own right).
I suppose it looks that way if someone is not also as colorblind as the casting.
That would be awesome, but only if we can have Gilbert Gottfried playing someone, perhaps Elrond or Golem.
"Listen, mother☺☺☺☺er, you shall not ☺☺☺☺in' pass while I'm here."
"Elven, mother☺☺☺☺er, do you speak it?!"
That is awesome.
Sick and tired of this mo$& Jace in my mo&%&*% face!
Sorry, just had to add that.
Yup, you caught me. I can see what someone looks like, and it bothers me if their racial phenotype is out of place in the story.
It also bothers me when a character who's supposed to be attractive isn't, when a character who's supposed to be straight-laced has tattoos and piercings, and when two characters who are supposed to be relatives look nothing alike. I think appearances matter in a visual medium. Sue me.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The question is whether it's a "reimagining" or keeping "true to the original." Take for example a lot of Shakespearean plays have been redone from DiCaprio's version to several others in Japan and through out Asia that are good. Africa also has differing versions that maintain the dialogue and story. In that case or in areas where you're importing a white play into an area of a different race, the suspension of disbelief is necessary.
Overall, I do agree though that preferably if the acting is going to be true to form, then it should include people of that specific race. It really depends on the aims of the production, though. Furthermore, on the point of "it looks good enough to be real" such as people that can play different nationalities and races.
If you've ever seen a strong actor playing "out of color," the suspension carries regardless especially in theatre. The accents though I feel are the most difficult to pull off for some actors, and I greatly respect men like Hugh Laurie that can do different accents. However, actors like these tend to be rare.
I think with modern technology this is less of an issue. Looking at Battlestar between the Adamma sons and the father where Olmos had to wear contact lenses to match Bamber's eye color so they "looked related" held it together very well. I'd admit, I would like to see something outside of White Chicks, The Associate, and Mrs. Doubtfire and more serious roles where whites play blacks, blacks play whites, and ect. I feel that it would actually be good every so often to do this, and to really push acting as a profession into new areas.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Oh, don't even get me started. Colorblind casting mildly bugs me, but a bad accent makes me want to light kittens on fire.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as accents go, I think it's more consistency than accuracy. Watching something like Gladiator requires us to "deal" with them speaking modern English. Even in milder forms, such as in Braveheart it's unlikely that we would understand much of what was said had the language been from the period.
However, if some guy, during the movie Gladiator were to randomly start speaking Latin with subtitles, where everyone else is speaking English, the suspension of disbelief is shattered.
The best use I ever saw of this was whenever the "main language" was English but inferred to be something else and the "other people" that spoke a different language were indeed speaking the actual language that the characters should speak relative to the story.
The worst was casting Sean Connery as an Arab with a brogue in The Wind and the Lion. It's a decent movie, but the accent was hilarious. Granted that I'm surprised Zed from Zardoz has yet to become an internet meme for the costume, but I digress.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Robin Hood isn't about race relations. There are lots of angles that the story of Robin Hood might have explored, but I hardly think it has to be an exact recreation of medieval england, with all it's axes of conflict and turmoil.
Now, for example, you couldn't have Amistad with white guys playing the slaves, because that's a story that is very much about race. There it's important.
The Last Airbender? Akira?
It happens a lot. I don't think it's too big of a deal, unless there becomes a trend of exclusion, where minority actors don't get opportunities because all the roles are cast for whites.
This whole thread reminds me of the campaign to get Donald Glover (African-American actor who plays Troy on Community) to play Peter Parker in the new reboot of the Spider-man franchise. I mean, if you're making the whole origin story happen today, there's no reason Peter couldn't be black- there are lots of lower-middle class, intelligent black kids, and Stan Lee gave his blessing to the idea.
But people got up in arms over the idea- people made a fuss over casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor, and yet he was probably the best part of that movie. You have to recognize that since that vast, vast majority of past literature and other artwork that tend to inspire films are often exclusively stocked with white characters, and even now it's extremely rare to have a non-white lead role, too close an adherence to "literary integrity" will reinforce the disadvantages blacks face in their cultural representation. Should a black actor not have a chance to play the hero, without having to be a "black hero"?
If you read that article, it gives a perfect example. Red in Shawshank Redemption was written as an Irishman, but they gave the role to Morgan Freeman because they decided that fact wasn't important to the story or his character. I assume if you've seen the movie you know that was a good decision.
But here's the thing. Consider the Adams HBO miniseries. Wasn't about race. But race was a huge part of the cultural context in which it was set. So you couldn't have cast, say, Abigail Adams as black, because for John Adams to have had a black wife and that not become a major issue would have strained incredulity to the breaking point.
You see, that I don't care about. Yeah, I made a wisecrack over on the movie thread about Sif not being blonde (which actually is a plot point in one of the myths). And if I wanted to nitpick I might have said something about Thor not being redheaded. But in the Marvel Universe, they're not Scandinavian, they're aliens. This is a perfectly decent suspension-preserving explanation - if anything, it raises the question of why they look human at all.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, I think a biography's a little different.
Then you're not exactly being colorblind, are you?
Anyway, if it had been the story of a fictional 18th-Century politician, a mixed-race marriage would still have been a major headscratcher.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Blacks account for 12% of the U.S. population last time I checked. The cultural representation should account for that. If it doesn't then we need
changes, but it's almost as if we're talking about 50/50.
Regarding Shawshank, Freeman was excellent in that film and it's hard to picture anyone else in that role now. There's a tad bit of a difference to me though between story and myth. Like, Superman is myth. You can't recast Kent to a different race. A guy appears in one story, though, I don't think it's a problem because you don't have the same unbelievability factor.
Oh, and we haven't gotten into the Tyler Perry films yet. Do you think Perry should start casting non-blacks? (I don't personally care, because I think it fits the setup and cultural context, but it seems to me you ought to be somewhat offended, given your stance. Unless you're of the position that the past 5,000 black actors/actresses to audition for his films "coincidentally" beat out everyone else.)
Did I claim I was?
Such a story would almost certain involve the race relations of the time, because that was a very big deal for an 18th-Century politician. But what if it had been the story of a soldier at that time, who fought in the French and Indian War or some such war. Would it be such a big deal for that character to be black?
Sorry.
Cervid, what do you think about colorblind casting for biographies?
And if it didn't, that would break suspension. This is my point.
Yes. It wouldn't be impossible or anything - it's not like every black man in America was a slave or servant. But it would invite a lot of comment and prejudice.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How would you characterize your position here?
But that's very different than Robin Hood or whatever. Robin Hood doesn't mention race relations at all, so what does it matter if you've got some minority characters?
If the story is focused on other things about the time, I don't think it matters. History is very complex, and one could spend an entire movie exploring each facet of the characters and how they fit into the social fabric of the time. That would be a terrible and boring movie, though. So, we gloss over the parts that aren't relevant, and if the story is such that race isn't relevant, then it doesn't matter who you cast.
That race matters when race matters to the story, and it doesn't when it doesn't. Complaining about the race of a character who doesn't have a particular racial identity is silly, but so is casting an actor who doesn't fit the race of a character which is defined by his or her race.
Regardless of whether or not it is a biography, if the race is important in the context of the characters and time period, then casting should reflect that.
The movie doesn't have to explore the issue in detail. But other characters would treat him differently. Unless maybe if he only ever interacted with very close acquaintances who happened to be open-minded for their time.
In the time periods we're talking about, it's always important. Or at least relevant.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Characters in stories are characters in stories, not real people. They don't have to be fully true to what a real person would do in every situation. I really don't think a story is obligated to explore every conflict or prejudice that would plausibly arise.
If we're making history movies, sure. But is it always important to every story ever told about these time periods? No, it's not. There are plenty of stories set in the time that are just as compelling if you fiddle with the races of the characters.
It doesn't seem nearly as relevant in Merlin or Robin Hood as it does for a biography of John Adams. Race simply isn't an issue in the two former cases.
It probably helps that the woman cast as Gwen is fairly light skinned. She's not so dark as to shatter the suspension of disbelief.
Only because they've imported a conspicuously anachronistic attitude into the settings along with the conspicuously anachronistic demography. Race certainly is an issue in the medieval romances whenever "Saracens" show up (though more as a sign of foreignness and paganism than in its own right).
I'm honestly not sure which direction to take this comment in.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What are you confused by? Perhaps I can clarify.
No, it's just...
Should I point out that it contradicts everything you've said about colorblindness?
Should I take you at face value and ask why a lighter-skinned woman with African features preserves suspension when a dark-skinned woman doesn't?
Or should I go below the belt and make some comment about paper bag parties?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.