Escape to the Movies: Exodus: Gods and Kings - The 11th Plague

[Rellik San]

Yes, Christian Bale doesn't look like our preconceived notions of what someone from that time looks like, but surely this should be a case of best man for the job. Whatever you think of Bale, he got through the casting process [and] was obviously what the production wanted.

The problem is there is a reasonable inference to be made that the list qualities looked for in a star for the film could include "is white and won't scare off anyone afraid of people who wouldn't be allowed in the Klan." In an industry where tropes like the Magical Negro and the Bechdel Test are real things, it's just kind of sad to see one of the most Anglo-Saxon men in movies today getting cast as a genetically Middle-Eastern person living in an African nation. They really couldn't have found a brown dude for the job? Yeah, okay.

This isn't an issue of Scott's casting being on the nose of a hot button issue; instead of demonising him, perhaps we should turn our attentions to the studios that created that atmosphere.

So you're saying we need to attack an "atmosphere" and "studios" but not the people who contribute to those things, as if they exist independently of the people comprising them? Why? Because Ridley Scott is so powerless he can't make a movie on his name alone and has to bow to the pressure of evil "atmospheres" and "studios" forcing him against his will to cast Batman as Moses?

I'm not saying they couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job, I'm saying they likely couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job with the same cultural caché, something you neglected to address in your rebuttal to my comments and an important contextual element to what I said.

But as I said a film this expensive doesn't get made without a certain degree of studio say so. Ridley Scott is a powerful name for sure, but regardless of the director, the studios will do whatever they can to minimise risk, it's the nature of the industry as it stands, so whilst Bales casting is eye brow raising, I doubt it's entirely down to Scotts choice and that the studio even with the most powerful and influential directors will insist on certain conditions, including "You must hire X amount of "brand name actor" or we won't give you funding." So yes, the studio system is to blame more than you think.

 

[Rellik San]

Soooo... First of all, there are a ton of actors out there that are people of color and that are incredibly talented and could act the hell out of all those parts that didn't get those roles. Those roles went to white people. If you truly believe in "best person for the job" then we would be getting much more diverse casts in all our movies, but we don't. We get a bunch of white people. All the damn time. Whether or not they can act.

So yea. For a movie that would have been an excellent opportunity to give some wonderful talent a chance to shine in a historically accurate setting to not do so and instead only cast white people? Racist. No way around that really.

Though I do agree that we should also be seriously looking at the business aspect of things. However, I don't think it's all on the consumers at all. Films with more diverse casts frequently don't get funding in the first place, and many that do portray PoC (especially at this point in our history folks of Middle Eastern or Indian descent) as villains. However, if you look at films like Django Unchained or 12 Years a Slave... Those films did fantastically. So if you actually look at the business aspect of things, there is clearly a market that could very well be much bigger than what we are seeing for movies with more diverse casts... But those movies still aren't getting funding. Because racism.

I'm not saying there aren't, all I'm saying is Bale possibly got through on his own acting chops. I'm also saying that maybe it's studio pressure. I guess you're quite right, I should have phrased that a hell of a lot better.

I have to disagree with you there, both those films contain A LOT of well established actors, that's how they got made in all likelihood, in the case Django, Tarantino proved the chops for that kind of historical setting with Inglorious Bastards, add in the raw acting talent of Jamie Foxx but the majority of actors in it were White and of course a studio would green light it. 12 Years a Slave, got funding initially from Film 4, a company who are well known for funding risky films in association with the British Film Council, as Steve McQueen is a British director, and the film already partially funded outside of the Hollywood machine, it was easier to get other production companies to pony up the cash. So those aren't really great examples of trying to get a film on this scale made within the Hollywood system.

Now made within the British studio system, you bet your sweet ass they'd have hired authentic actors... but that's a literal world away from the Hollywood Studio System (seriously, could you imagine Hollywood green lighting Four Lions?). So my real argument, is the Studios are the problem... and when they are funding films for a (no offence Americans this is a BROOOOOOOAD generalisation) market that feels more comfortable with white faces on a scale and budget like this, they aren't gonna take risks, because the audience has proven it has no interest in seeing Arabic actors in starring roles.

 

[JimB]

I'm not saying they couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job, I'm saying they likely couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job with the same cultural caché, something you neglected to address in your rebuttal to my comments and an important contextual element to what I said.

I didn't address it because--and I thought my choice not to address it would have made this fairly clear--I don't care about it. I don't care who's bankable. Ridley fucking Scott's name is on this movie (more on that in a moment); there is your bank right there.

But as I said a film this expensive doesn't get made without a certain degree of studio say-so.

I don't know what "a certain degree" means or how you are certain you know which entities are responsible for which choices in the movie, but at the end of the day, Ridley Scott released this movie to the public with his name on it. That is an endorsement of the movie he made. If he doesn't want to accept responsibility for what he made, then he should have petitioned, uh, whichever organization allows a director to credit a film to Alan Smithee.

 

[Rellik San]

I'm not saying they couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job, I'm saying they likely couldn't have found a "brown dude" for the job with the same cultural caché, something you neglected to address in your rebuttal to my comments and an important contextual element to what I said.

I didn't address it because--and I thought my choice not to address it would have made this fairly clear--I don't care about it. I don't care who's bankable. Ridley fucking Scott's name is on this movie (more on that in a moment); there is your bank right there.

But as I said a film this expensive doesn't get made without a certain degree of studio say-so.

I don't know what "a certain degree" means or how you are certain you know which entities are responsible for which choices in the movie, but at the end of the day, Ridley Scott released this movie to the public with his name on it. That is an endorsement of the movie he made. If he doesn't want to accept responsibility for what he made, then he should have petitioned, uh, whichever organization allows a director to credit a film to Alan Smithee.

So you don't care about the systems that result in decisions like this?

Ridley Scotts name still only carries a certain amount of weight. It's not the be all and end all. It sounds to me like you want to be angry about the choice and as Scott's name is the one attached he's the one getting the flak instead of actually examining and discussing a larger problem.

Hey that's your choice, but you ain't gonna be part of the solution with that. Just another angry voice not asking the right questions.

 

[Rowan93]

Why wouldn't a film made by a primarily white nation for a white audience cast a white cast? (USA the least white country out of USA, Canada, Europe and Australia is still 72% white) when Nigerian and Indian film producers do Shakespearean film adaptions they use black and Asian casts because that's who their audience is.

Shakespeare plays are different. If you changed, say, Henry V to be more historically accurate, and reflect our current actual knowledge of the events it depicts, you'd be missing the point completely because that's not what it's about. It's about the characters and the emotions and the poetry, and plenty of productions change everything except those bits to specifically make that point - remember that Romeo + Juliet film with Leonardo DiCaprio where it's all modern and the guns have brand names like "sword" so they can still use the Shakesperean lines as written? A Nigerian production of Shakespeare that went to the effort of recruiting an all-white cast would be missing the point atrociously.

 

[o_d]

Once I called you brother, once I thought the chance to make you laugh was all I ever wanted....

The Prince of Egypt is so frickin kick-ass.

 

[jackpipsam]

I am just bored of this story.

I am an Atheist, but I no problem with religious movies if they're good movies.
But at this point this story has just been done a million times.

Surely there's another story in the Bible which can be used which hasn't been used a million times before.

 

[JohnSmith8976]

Why wouldn't a film made by a primarily white nation for a white audience cast a white cast? (USA the least white country out of USA, Canada, Europe and Australia is still 72% white) when Nigerian and Indian film producers do Shakespearean film adaptions they use black and Asian casts because that's who their audience is.



Second thing Jewish is a religion not a race just like you get white and black Christians and Muslims. Israel was mostly populated by white European when it was founded it's only after it's first war that more middle eastern Jews became the dominant ethnicity.

Damn straight. I was wondering if this was obvious to anyone else. Not everything to do with race is automatically racism, people.

 

[Something Amyss]

I honestly don't know why people expected much from this. Ridley Scott's been attached to like 90000 things in the last 5 years, and to say "I can count on one hand the number of them that have been good" would be to imply that there might be as many as five.

Also, if there's no "I swear to God!" "Swear to ME!" in this movie, I am disappoint.

There's been a lot of Christian movies covered by ETTM this year: Last Son of God, Noah, Heaven is for Real and now Exodus.

Why so many Christ movies this year?

It's not like this is specifically new, as they've been ramping up the number of Christian movies for quite some time. This is basically just more of Hollywood having discovered what the record industry discovered decades ago: There is a certain demographic of Christians who will buy any piece of shit with "Jesus" slapped on it.

Now, (hopefully) before someone pounces on me for this, some provisions. I'm not saying that all or even most Christians are stupid, or even that this specific movie which I've not yet seen is bad. However, it very likely exists for the same reason that all the other Bible porn does: because there is a market of Christians in the US with way more money than sense, and quite possibly also because there's another group that will protest the movie (but pay for it anyway) because it's not accurate to their idea of Jeebus (I know Jesus doesn't appear in this Old Testament tale, but that's not the point).

And then, of course, there are still people for whom Ridley Scott's name is a selling point. For...whatever reason.

Wouldn't this be a Jewish film? Unless some of the events of the film happen during one of the sequels to the Old Testament of course.

This is a setup for a shared Universe, eventually culminating in a crossover epic featuring Moses, Samson, Noah, Lot, and Job. If they can't save Jesus, you can be damn sure they'll avenge Him.

Except Bob himself notes: "...even though we don't actually know what period of Egyptian history the events of the Book of Exodus are supposed to have taken place in and thus don't fully know what the ethnic appearance of ancient Hebrews actually was." So you really can't argue for historical authenticity.

Except when you establish a movie as taking place in the time of Ramses II, that argument goes out the window.

 

[Something Amyss]

Best person for the job, pretty sure that's what true equality is about.

Funny how this only comes up when people want minority actors, and not when the studios preclude people based on not being white. Suddenly, the "best person for the job" people disappear.

Very selective in your "equality."

 

[hentropy]

To be honest I stopped caring about the racial makeup of the actors when I saw the freaking pyramids under construction in the background. It's clear that accuracy never once factored into the production decisions, and that the film wouldn't be worth seeing.

I agree with sentiment that The Prince of Egypt is still the best telling of the story.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

When did Christian movies become so popular? Haven't we had a recent surge of them in the past few years?

I mean, I guess there's a lot in the Christian mythos that would make for interesting films (even if it's not my particular cup of tea), but is there any reason why these are suddenly a thing?

 

[MCerberus]

Conspiracy theory:

Hollywood is attempting to make a Christian movie that even the fundies can't defend.

"Sexy Jesus"
"Hey guess what, we put the Nephalim in"
"I just took a CGI-laden turd on a central moment in Abrahamic religions."

 

[Redd the Sock]

Yeah, I'd have more sympathy for the whitewashing comments if I wasn't sure that in 2 weeks we'll be hearing about how groundbreaking the black cast in annie is despite how it deviates from the source material. Want more opportunities for minority actors? fine. Just don't change the rules of "why" to justify it.

And have a modicum of a fair mind on the subject. Yes, there is talented actors of all ethic groups out there, but directors don't get to grab actors off the street and say "you're going to be my Moses." Auditions, script approval, scheduling conflicts, physical requirements of the role, a lot of barriers get in the way of ideal casting. It's why I don't bat an eye at Johnny Depp as Tonto: I just can't envision many native actors jumping at playing a role literally synonymous with a slur against their people even before they read the script and thought it wasn't worth it. Factor in how we're still somewhat addicted to the star mentality wherein famous casting is what gets most of our attention (ie: there's a reason Cumberbatch is playing Dr Strange instead of a no name, or why anyone gives any shit whatsoever about the Expendables) and anyone coming up has to sell it beyond the norm to overcome what is in essence, brand recognition.

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, just remember that it's easy to act like it's all a fantasy football pick online when you aren't sitting in your 200th audition and half the big names you had in mind aren't returning your calls.

 

[Rellik San]

Best person for the job, pretty sure that's what true equality is about.

Funny how this only comes up when people want minority actors, and not when the studios preclude people based on not being white. Suddenly, the "best person for the job" people disappear.

Very selective in your "equality."

Well that's a very broad accusation, perhaps you'd care to back up your claim that I'm being selective in "equality" perhaps some evidence would be nice before you casually suggest I'm... "selective" about equality.

But hey I guess it's easier for you to strawman myself and other people by making broad vaguely accusatory statements without comment or knowledge of their past opinions. Wouldn't want that pesky proof thing to get in the way would you?

But as I've stated in the past: I couldn't give a shit if Luke Skywalker was suddenly played by Idris Elba, I just want to see good actors in good roles and quite frankly, couldn't give a shit about ethnicity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, just remember that it's easy to act like it's all a fantasy football pick online when you aren't sitting in your 200th audition and half the big names you had in mind aren't returning your calls.

And a thousand times... this.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well that's a very broad accusation, perhaps you'd care to back up your claim that I'm being selective in "equality" perhaps some evidence would be nice before you casually suggest I'm... "selective" about equality.

Funny, considering you just recently made accusations based on assumptions. I guess it's okay when you do it?

But seriously, can you point me to some posts where you've actually applied this elsewhere? Because I see a pattern of your whitesplaining, but not so much anything else.

But hey I guess it's easier for you to strawman myself and other people by making broad vaguely accusatory statements without comment or knowledge of their past opinions. Wouldn't want that pesky proof thing to get in the way would you?

Careful with those stones, it'd be a shame to see your nice house of glass come down around you if the neighbours got ideas.

 

[Rellik San]

Well that's a very broad accusation, perhaps you'd care to back up your claim that I'm being selective in "equality" perhaps some evidence would be nice before you casually suggest I'm... "selective" about equality.

Funny, considering you just recently made accusations based on assumptions. I guess it's okay when you do it?

But seriously, can you point me to some posts where you've actually applied this elsewhere? Because I see a pattern of your whitesplaining, but not so much anything else.

But hey I guess it's easier for you to strawman myself and other people by making broad vaguely accusatory statements without comment or knowledge of their past opinions. Wouldn't want that pesky proof thing to get in the way would you?

Careful with those stones, it'd be a shame to see your nice house of glass come down around you if the neighbours got ideas.

Not based on any assumptions, just calling it how I see it.
Whitesplaining? Are we making up words now? What? What does that even mean?

Why do I need to be weary of throwing stones, I ain't inferring (not enough to be an outright accusation but it's there intentional or not) everyone I disagree with is racist.

 

[Something Amyss]

Not based on any assumptions, just calling it how I see it.

As am I.

Why do I need to be weary of throwing stones, I ain't inferring (not enough to be an outright accusation but it's there intentional or not) everyone I disagree with is racist.

Nor am I. Weird, it's almost like you're applying a double standard or something.

So you're going to dodge the part where you show me evidence that you don't just make these claims when someone wants more minorities?

 

[JimB]

So you don't care about the systems that result in decisions like this?

Not when I think "the system" is being used as a shell game to immunize someone from criticism. "Step right up folks and try to follow the red ball! It represents personal participation in a system! Now round and round and round she goes, and were she stops nobody knows! Alright, you, sir, which cup is the ball under? Oh, too bad! Whaddaya say, double or nothing?"

Or, to phrase that with less bitterness, I dislike the idea that the existence of a collective renders individuals irresponsible for their actions while within that system. If that's the case, then no one is responsible for any of their own actions, since everyone is a smaller member of a larger social group; and even ignoring that personal stance of mine, I find it absurd that Ridley Scott gets to put up an image before and after the movie saying, "A Ridley Scott film," but not somehow accept the responsibility for that film's contents.

Ridley Scott's name still only carries a certain amount of weight.

Then how many people would you estimate saw the movie because of his name, and how many would you estimate saw it because of Christian Bale's? Let's stop throwing around vague and undefinable terms and get down to it.

It sounds to me like you want to be angry about the choice and as Scott's name is the one attached he's the one getting the flak instead of actually examining and discussing a larger problem.

If you think I'm angry about it, then I have to question your reading comprehension, since I explicitly said in my first response to you that I find it sad, not enraging. I don't remember ever saying I think Ridley Scott deserves all the blame, either; I am not interested in creating percentages of blame, because that seems like the most useless thing imaginable. The only thing I've ever said to you is that I disagree with your belief that someone who participates in a system must not be blamed for the shape and actions of that system.

Hey that's your choice, but you ain't gonna be part of the solution with that.

Okay, that one actually does irritate me a little. Are you saying that sitting here on the internet and talking about how Ridley Scott is free from responsibility is solving a problem? Which problem, and how is that accomplishing it?