The Big Picture: Skin Deeper

[Malisteen]

How are the casting choices racist?

The overwhelming majority of rolls in Hollywood are written explicitly for white people. When the rolls aren't specified, the overwhelming majority of casting goes to white actors exclusively, because of the assumption that the White American 'everyman' viewing public is too racist to identify whith non-white actors. When rolls are specifically written for colored people, the rolls themselves are quite frequently there to play off of and reinforce racist stereotypes, frequently for 'humor'. In other cases, actors of color are cast only when the story is 'about' race in some way, like white is the default normal.

This is an environment of ongoing, self perpetuating, institutionalized racism (and sexism, for that matter). Racism now, not in the past, hobbling the careers of non-white American actors today and perpetuating modern racist stereotypes and racist standards of 'normalcy' or 'beauty' as equivalent to whiteness.

Asian actors are denied meaningful rolls every day because they are asian, relegated to racially stereotyped supporting rolls if anything at all, and in this real world, today, not-ancient-history context putting a white man in the role of an Asian character is denying limited roles to real Asian American actors in a way that casting a Black Woman in the role of a white character does not do for White American actresses.


And for those who have commented that they "don't even see race":

It's easy for white people to say "I don't see race, I'm color blind". But when you do that all you're really doing is averting your eyes and plugging your ears and saying "I choose to ignore racism because acknowledging it and facing up to it would be inconvenient for me".

"Color blindness", as the euphemism for willful ignorance and passive acceptance of the status quo it has become, is itself racist.

 

[beniki]

So Bob since the past is unchangeable and that historical stigma and blackface will always be around in the past, isn't those double standard justifications going to be eternal?

Seriously how would we know when we can drop the double standard altogether? I really want to know.

The answer's probably going to be more non-white roles but roughly how many do we need?

Well, actually I think it'll be when other movie hubs across the world gain equal prestige/money making power as Hollywood. When we get 'pink' actors moving to predominantly 'black' or 'yellow' skinned countries to find jobs, then some kind of balance will be had.

Essentially equality through economics. I don't really believe in the power of high minded ideals, but greed... greed you can trust.

 

[Malisteen]

I'm getting what you're trying to say, but one has to ask the question: why was the context ignored in the first place?

It was ignored by stupid people. There's your reason.

Well stupid people that jumped to conclusions before seeing the film.

The fictional context of the film DOES NOT TRUMP the real world context of its creation.

It doesn't matter that Avatar, for instance, delivered a message of preserving the environment and respecting native peoples when it was funded by, and its profits rendered unto, major corporations that destroy the environment and trample the rights of native peoples.

Likewise, it doesn't matter that Cloud Atlas delivered a message that racism was wrong, if it's casting choices furthered the racist exclusion of actors of Asian descent from meaningful roles.

OT: If I had been born during that time, my Lord would have told me to be an Abolitionist. I would have moved to Kansas and worked to establish the state with the Union (which did happen), I would have picked up arms and fought off the rebel Missourians (the time known as Bleeding Kansas).

Yes, I count the Abolitionist who died in the name of ending slavery as Martyred for the Lord.

Maybe. Or maybe your Lord would have told you that all black people are subhumans descended from a forsaken people cursed by God for their wickedness, and that slavery is their proper lot in life. Because that was what the majority of 'godly men' taught their white congregations in much of the united states, and those congregations were happy to eat it up and go out and brutalize and enslave their fellow man in the name of the Lord, and your god never did see fit to correct them.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Only a Sith deals an absolute. ONLY A SITH.

Is that not, in upon itself an absolute?

Or is everyone else allowed just this one absolute or perhaps an absolute of their choosing, but anymore than the one and they fall to the Dark Side and become a Sith?

 

[Malisteen]

Is that not, in upon itself an absolute?

Or is everyone else allowed just this one absolute or perhaps an absolute of their choosing, but anymore than the one and they fall to the Dark Side and become a Sith?

Only a Sith "deals in" absolutes.

You don't have to be a Sith to have some absolutes, but once you start trading them on the commodities market then your journey to the Dark Side is complete.

 

[Gavmando]

I know a Woopi Goldberg quote that seems pretty apt for this discussion:

"I'm an actor, not an actress. An actress can only play a woman. An actor can play anything."

 

[Aureliano]

Mmm, I'd forgotten about the Donald Glover remark about playing Spiderman.

I've got the least weird boner of them all right now...

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I know a Woopi Goldberg quote that seems pretty apt for this discussion:

"I'm an actor, not an actress. An actress can only play a woman. An actor can play anything."

Which is terribly ironic coming from a woman who is only ever hired to play Woopi Goldberg.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I'm getting what you're trying to say, but one has to ask the question: why was the context ignored in the first place?

It was ignored by stupid people. There's your reason.

Well stupid people that jumped to conclusions before seeing the film.

The fictional context of the film DOES NOT TRUMP the real world context of its creation.

It doesn't matter that Avatar, for instance, delivered a message of preserving the environment and respecting native peoples when it was funded by, and its profits rendered unto, major corporations that destroy the environment and trample the rights of native peoples.

Likewise, it doesn't matter that Cloud Atlas delivered a message that racism was wrong, if it's casting choices furthered the racist exclusion of actors of Asian descent from meaningful roles.

OT: If I had been born during that time, my Lord would have told me to be an Abolitionist. I would have moved to Kansas and worked to establish the state with the Union (which did happen), I would have picked up arms and fought off the rebel Missourians (the time known as Bleeding Kansas).

Yes, I count the Abolitionist who died in the name of ending slavery as Martyred for the Lord.

Maybe. Or maybe your Lord would have told you that all black people are subhumans descended from a forsaken people cursed by God for their wickedness, and that slavery is their proper lot in life. Because that was what the majority of 'godly men' taught their white congregations in much of the united states, and those congregations were happy to eat it up and go out and brutalize and enslave their fellow man in the name of the Lord, and your god never did see fit to correct them.

I almost did not respond. There is a verse about not arguing with fools and I am questioning if you saw this episode of "The Big Picture".

1. Context is important - that means the movie is not racist because it was arguing against racism by using the same actors in every time period. I must see that movie.

2. I know a good deal more about the voice of God then you. The Lord never told anyone in early America to be racist. I can actually point out every part of the Bible that says that it was wrong, I even have access to historical documents showing treason onto the Lord by churches who did make unholy claims of this.

This is all I will say, I do not think that what I just said will be heard. I already know all of the normal, mock mock mock, responses. If that is your response I will ignore it in the future.

*a sad sigh and contemplating tomorrow*

 

[Malisteen]

1) The internal context of a films fictional narrative does not trump the external context of the films real world production.

2) Believing in God does not make you good.

There's a reason that Frederick Douglas wrote that of all slave owners, religious slave owners were the worst.

That "between the Christianity of [America] and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference - so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked." The slavery-preaching American Christianity that Douglas described was ubiquitous, and endured well after the Civil War. Oh, yes, there were a few noble exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions. The revisionist fantasy delivered by so many of Hollywood's "anti-racism" narratives is just just that, a fantasy - the smug, self aggrandizing belief that "if I had been alive at the time, I would have been one of the good guys! I would have been the white man living with and fighting for the American Indians! I would have been the white guy learning the way of the samuri and fighting against european cultural imperialism! I would have been the abolitionist ally helping slaves escape! I would would never have been the invader, the killer, the imperialist, the slaveholder"

And you buy these soft serve messages and reassure yourself about your own fundamental goodness and that of your faith and your culture even while willfully turning a blind eye to the ways in which you have benefitted from the racism of the past and come up with 'contextual' excuses to ignore or explain away the racism of the present, because not seeing a freaking movie is too much inconvenience for your morals to bear.

Jesus does not protect his flock from those who would hijack their faith to do great harm, nor does he protect the rest of the world from zealous believers who have twisted their faith to justify the oppression of others. History repeatedly attests to this. Believing in God does not make you good, nor does it stop you from being evil. One can be good and be a believer, but if you think the latter is enough to ensure the former, then you leave yourself open to those who would use your faith as a tool for cruelty and corruption, and thats assuming your own self interest doesn't beat them to it.

 

[aba1]

If a famous actor can play a mentally handicapped person instead of a mentally handicapped person playing themselves I am perfectly fine with that.

As such, I am perfectly fine with black face, white face, whatever face a good actor puts on to play his/her role. Who cares if a minority doesn't get a role because of it? As long as they had the equally denied opportunity that your average white actor had when applying for it.

I agree if anything this movie proves that race is less of a issue when choosing actors. Actors can be chosen for being the best choice now and not necessarily just being a certain ethnicity.

 

[aba1]

People want racism to go away yet everyone keeps insisting on labeling each other like this. Why does it matter what actors got chosen they were obviously the best for their parts. People just need to let this whole race thing drop or it will never go away.

 

[aba1]

How are the casting choices racist?

.

Okay well I disagree in a good few ways so I will just let ya know why and you can agree or disagree and do what you want with it.

"The overwhelming majority of rolls in Hollywood are written explicitly for white people."

I gotta ask what roles are you talking about? I am hard pressed to think of even 10 roles that couldn't be played by someone of any race outside roles that were based on a pre-existing source so the characters looks were already set in stone. I challenge you to name 10 roles that only a "white" person could play that wasn't based on a pre-existing character. Sure most roles got to "white" people but the majority of people in that part of world are "white". Would you go to China and give them crap because most of their actors are Chinese? Sure roles are stereotyped but that is just true for most roles in general. This is where all tropes come from. Mind you I am not a fan of the overplayed stereotypes myself so I won't really argue how annoying and sometimes offensive they can be.

I have found Asian actors do tend to get really stereotyped roles I would be hard pressed to name more than 50 different characters that were Asian but not a stereotype. This really needs to change in my opinion.

It's easy for white people to say "I don't see race, I'm color blind". But when you do that all you're really doing is averting your eyes and plugging your ears and saying "I choose to ignore racism because acknowledging it and facing up to it would be inconvenient for me".

This is way off base you really shouldn't pretend you know what people are thinking better than they do. You definitely shouldn't tell people what they think or what they mean. I know if I were to say I don't see race I am colour blind I would be making a reference to the fact that I don't feel the need to group or judge people based on race. To be honest you just came off as a little racist yourself this last bit I mean that first line was really rude.

 

[TAdamson]

While I have my doubts about several of Bob's ruminations on Geek Culture his positions on the wider humanity are nearly always spot on.

Thanks Bob.

 

[Terragent]

I've yet to see the film, but one point that Bob made I found quite jarring: equating Adam Ewing's and Hae-Joo Chang's stories seems to be outright contradictory, given that

Spoiler

he was a Unanimity agent all along - he didn't learn shit about racism, because he was one of the oppressors before, during, and after Sonmi's escapades.

Unless they changed that from the book to the film, of course, in which case I can't help but be disappointed that the central thesis of the entire chapter has been completely rewritten.

Can somebody who's seen the film clarify for me?

 

[Jennacide]

Am I the only one that thought the "tl;dr:" of this is simply "Haters gonna hate."

 

[beniki]

So Bob since the past is unchangeable and that historical stigma and blackface will always be around in the past, isn't those double standard justifications going to be eternal?

Seriously how would we know when we can drop the double standard altogether? I really want to know.

The answer's probably going to be more non-white roles but roughly how many do we need?

Well, actually I think it'll be when other movie hubs across the world gain equal prestige/money making power as Hollywood.

Why? That seems like a such an arbitrary and absurd standard

[
When we get 'pink' actors moving to predominantly 'black' or 'yellow' skinned countries to find jobs, then some kind of balance will be had.

So the new standard is Hollywood losing a lot of ground?

I don't know what standard you think I suggested... I just thought it was a matter of practicality. Hollywood is in a predominantly 'pink' country, so it's films have more pink skinned actors. Since most of the best selling world releases come from Hollywood, that's why you see a lot of pink skinned actors. By the same token, you see a lot of 'yellow' skinned actors in Japanese movies.

I guess you could argue that other movie making hubs becoming stronger is Hollywood losing ground, but honestly, increasing the diversity of film sources doesn't bother me that much... especially if they can all produce with Hollywood production values.

 

[Casey Goddard]

Kind of reminds me of how a lot of people thought the "Starship Troopers" movie was really in support of fascism rather than a satire. You can check out a video analysis of it here:

http://youtu.be/jQcUa38KNFo

 

[Gigano]

Well, while history and general availability might matter in descriptive sociology, they don't really do so in normatively determining whether an individual was treated unjustly.

Taken individually, "racebending" is unjustifiable if it cannot be justified to the specific individual subjected to it. A black actor who is denied a suitable role on the basis of his race, is no more or less discriminated against than a white actor denied a suitable role on the basis of his race.

Arguing that due to collective factors it's OK to discriminate an innocent individual - who has no responsibility for these factors, and don't necessarily benefit from them - while granting special treatment to another, isn't really all that convincing... unless you see people not as individuals, but as "racial hives", where ensuring/determining that one part of that hive has a benefit is justification for taking away from other parts of it. A collectivist premise that might work with ants or bees, but hardly for humans.

That little snag aside, it's patently obvious that if the "racebending" casting choice grounds itself in valid and savoury reasons, related to the narrative quality/impact of the movie, then it obviously won't be discrimination whichever way it might go. Though I suppose that since "justification" in regard to the individual didn't really matter to the collectivist social engineering types defending maintaining a racial double standard, it won't matter in regard to individual movies like "Cloud Atlas" either. Unless of course they happen to like them.

 

[Malisteen]

This is way off base you really shouldn't pretend you know what people are thinking better than they do. You definitely shouldn't tell people what they think or what they mean. I know if I were to say I don't see race I am colour blind I would be making a reference to the fact that I don't feel the need to group or judge people based on race. To be honest you just came off as a little racist yourself this last bit I mean that first line was really rude.

"Color Blindness" quite a while ago lost most of its positive connotations. For one, it's an established falsehood by scientific research: our brains are programmed to recognize race. Alongside gender its one of the very first things we process about any face we see. But more to the point, it's used to shut down open discussion of ongoing racism: "Well, I don't see race", made functionally equivalent to "I don't want to talk about it, don't want to hear about it".

One person says "Asian descended actors in America are overwhelmingly rejected from general roles, relegated to racially stereotyped supporting roles if that, and in this environment a white man playing one of the few well rounded Asian characters to show up in a Hollywood production has an entirely different and far more negative real world context than an actor of color playing a white role."

This person isn't demanding that you hate the movie. They might prefer you not support it with your money, but they're not even demanding that. They're asking you to simply be aware of the real world context of institutionalized racism that permeates the bones of Hollywood's studio system. To take it into account and consider it. Context counts for a lot, if not everything, but there's more to context than just the internal narrative of a film. The society and system which produced it is also part of its context. The one cannot wipe out the other. The good does not wash away the bad, nor the bad the good. If you can acknowledge the cinematic talent and innovation behind "Triumph of the Will" while still being aware of and denouncing its horrific social context, then you can like Cloud Atlas as a film and still acknowledge that establishing technology for and furthering a precedent of white actors being cast in non-white roles is handing a racist Hollywood system more tools and excuses to marginalize colored actors and genuine colored representation in media.

Responding instead with "Well I don't even see race, any actor should be allowed to play any role", is ignoring the issue that any actor isn't allowed to play any role. That actors of color are attacked for even stating that they would like to play a white role, that scripts are frequently rejected or rewritten when they explicitly call for a colored character in the lead role. That the Hollywood system regularly plays to and reinforces racial stereotypes while delivering a message that white = beautiful, white = good, white = normal. There's racism out there, and by refusing to see race, you're refusing to see the ways in which the race of non-white people is still held against them. It's choosing to not notice and not care because noticing and caring is too inconvenient if it comes between you and your appreciation of a movie. And no, I don't have to show the least respect for that sentiment.

It's a self serving mantra that reaffirms the notion that you don't need to do even consider anything. As if ignoring the issue was enough. What problem ever went away by ignoring it? Racism isn't just something that one actively chooses, like a mustache-twirling villain. It's also something you can passively accept by simply choosing not to see, not to care. "Color blind" is just that - willfully blind to the real world issues faced by colored people. It can be a great moral for teaching kindergartners how the world should be, but once you're past grade school, once your world and your influence stretches past the room you're currently sitting in, once it's time for you to start dealing with how the world is, once reconciling the "is" with the "should be" is your responsibility, it's just not good enough anymore.

--------

And in response to the comment from a while ago, that the US is a 'pink' country and a 'pink' bias in its media representation is to be expected, well there's more to Hollywood's pink bias than that. But even if that were all, the idea that this is a 'pink' country is increasingly just not true anymore. White is a plurality, not a majority now. Even that may not last our lifetime. Obama won re-election despite losing the white vote by a whopping 20 points. The America of the 1940's simply is not the America of the 2010's. Hollywood is behind the times on this as they are on many other things (the digital revolution, for instance) and any pressure the film-going public can put on them to catch up is a good thing.