Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 30, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: I think Idris would be a great Bond because he is smooth and handsome and a terrible actor, and Bond is shit so he meets the criteria perfectly. So you'll be auditioning too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTonetta Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 They need a trans bisexual person with a prosthetic leg to play Joseph Merrick. It's only fair, and only progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 30, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 30, 2018 This is an excellent article that highlights not only why whitewashing is so prevalent but also why it's also so unnecessary from a business point of view. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/29/the-idea-that-its-good-business-is-a-myth-why-hollywood-whitewashing-has-become-toxic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted August 30, 2018 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2018 40 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said: So you'll be auditioning too! Uh... Did you just call me smooth, handsome and a bad actor? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 30, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 30, 2018 Shit! I meant shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Carbomb said: Also, this argument is losing sight of the fact that representation isn't just for representation's sake; it has a very specific purpose, which isn't just to tell people that (in the trans case) trans people exist, but also to create opportunities for trans people so that they too can have their place in society which has thus far been denied. In the other thread, Keith summed it up perfectly: it's the difference between representation and tokenism. I think greater representation of diversity is a really important thing in film and television BUT I would argue that the most important factor is the creation of more diverse roles rather than repurposing other roles. There are really very few major roles for black, asian, trans, or indeed female actors in Hollywood, and by that I mean a part where that's important as opposed to window dressing. Roles like Nomi Marks in Sense8 or Tyrion Lannister in GoT are still incredibly rare and so for me it makes sense to cast someone who can really inhabit that complex character using their own experience. This means hiring more diverse writers and commissioning more diverse stories, something Hollywood struggles with. So I'd not want a white actor to be cast as Othello any more, as it's explicitly a black character. Equally I'm not a huge fan of anachronistic ethnic characters in period dramas where their presence is effectively splashing some colour about and nobody mentions how unusual it is to have a black vicar in the 18th century. That's just pandering, and ruins the piece. I do draw the line at having to cast gay actors in gay roles though - that again strikes me as patronising. Your sexuality isn't a physical trait. If Rock Hudson can play super-heterosexuals for his entire career, I think Jack Whitehall can play a character who happens to be gay. More worrying for me is.. is that character gay just to add some inches to newspaper columns? Or is it, again, a poorly thought through and patronising attempt to shoehorn diversity into something? As regards the Elephant Man, unless you can find some poor bastard with the same condition who happens to be a world class actor, then you might as well cast whoever will be able to portray the role best. And honestly, it's going to be shit compared with the original, so who cares really? EDIT: as an aside, I remember when Bridesmaids came out that it was remarked how rare it is in a Hollywood film to have a scene where two women are talking without a man present, just to highlight how narrow the field of vision is. It stuck with me, and it now sticks out like a sore thumb whenever I watch films. I watched The Gunman the other day, and the only female role was fucking APPALLINGLY written - she basically jumped from bed to bed, got raped and was the object to be rescued. Apart from that, no character development. That shit needs to disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 30, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 30, 2018 22 minutes ago, Loki said: I think greater representation of diversity is a really important thing in film and television BUT I would argue that the most important factor is the creation of more diverse roles rather than repurposing other roles. There are really very few major roles for black, asian, trans, or indeed female actors in Hollywood, and by that I mean a part where that's important as opposed to window dressing. Roles like Nomi Marks in Sense8 or Tyrion Lannister in GoT are still incredibly rare and so for me it makes sense to cast someone who can really inhabit that complex character using their own experience. This means hiring more diverse writers and commissioning more diverse stories, something Hollywood struggles with. So I'd not want a white actor to be cast as Othello any more, as it's explicitly a black character. Equally I'm not a huge fan of anachronistic ethnic characters in period dramas where their presence is effectively splashing some colour about and nobody mentions how unusual it is to have a black vicar in the 18th century. That's just pandering, and ruins the piece. I do draw the line at having to cast gay actors in gay roles though - that again strikes me as patronising. Your sexuality isn't a physical trait. If Rock Hudson can play super-heterosexuals for his entire career, I think Jack Whitehall can play a character who happens to be gay. More worrying for me is.. is that character gay just to add some inches to newspaper columns? Or is it, again, a poorly thought through and patronising attempt to shoehorn diversity into something? As regards the Elephant Man, unless you can find some poor bastard with the same condition who happens to be a world class actor, then you might as well cast whoever will be able to portray the role best. And honestly, it's going to be shit compared with the original, so who cares really? EDIT: as an aside, I remember when Bridesmaids came out that it was remarked how rare it is in a Hollywood film to have a scene where two women are talking without a man present, just to highlight how narrow the field of vision is. It stuck with me, and it now sticks out like a sore thumb whenever I watch films. I watched The Gunman the other day, and the only female role was fucking APPALLINGLY written - she basically jumped from bed to bed, got raped and was the object to be rescued. Apart from that, no character development. That shit needs to disappear. To the bit in bold: I completely agree. I'm not arguing for repurposing roles, though; that's why I'm arguing the Scarlett Johansson/trans and Asian whitewashing issues - these were roles that were created for people from diverse backgrounds, and the furore is over the production companies in question defeating the purpose of having them in the first place. Also, there are a lot of "neutral" roles which don't specify ethnicity, and more often than not they tend to go to white actors - obviously, there's a higher proportion of white people in the West, so it's understandable to a point, but when you consider the proportion to which other ethnicities are under-represented (this goes for representation of trans people too), it's clear there's a lot more that needs to be done. As to the casting of gay actors in gay roles, again, I agree: this sort of thing needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it can be argued that plenty of homosexual actors have had plenty of roles in film and television over the last hundred or so years. There were problems with things like morality clauses and so on, but I think it would be fair to say that the representation of homosexuality, or specifically white homosexuality, is much less a problem than it was forty years ago. There's still an issue with the representation of black homosexuality, hence why Moonlight got such attention, but there has been a lot more opportunity for gay/lesbian actors, and also a lot more representation of gay/lesbian people, than there has been for the trans community. As for the Asian community, progress appears to be being made, but when you consider whitewashing of Asian roles has happened as recently as only a few years ago, despite such things as Charlie Chan back in the Inter-War period, Mickey Rooney in Breakfast At Tiffany's, and Bruce Lee being shafted out of a Chinese role he came up with to progress his career in the US in favour of a white guy in the 60s, it should raise some questions in people's minds as to why more progress hasn't been made thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 13 hours ago, Carbomb said: Also, there are a lot of "neutral" roles which don't specify ethnicity, and more often than not they tend to go to white actors - obviously, there's a higher proportion of white people in the West, so it's understandable to a point, but when you consider the proportion to which other ethnicities are under-represented (this goes for representation of trans people too), it's clear there's a lot more that needs to be done. This is the thing, for many people, "white" is assumed to be the default setting. So you get back to that kneejerk reaction were a minority cast in a role is always assumed to be a box filling exercise - which is an inherently toxic mindset, because to assume that only white actors and getting cast on merit is to imply that white actors are inherently better, or that there's something inherently "other" about minority roles. Again, I think a way around this is more minorities behind the scenes, and giving more plaudits to the women and minorities already working behind the scenes and historically working behind the scenes. The other side of the representation coin is that if all the people making the decisions look the same and have broadly the same lived experience, they're only going to cast people who look and think like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 I'd like to see Ben Foster cast as Dolemite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 If the reboot hadn't been so recent, and Karl Urban hadn't received such plaudits in the role, I'd have been intrigued by Idris Elba playing Judge Dredd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted August 31, 2018 Moderators Share Posted August 31, 2018 Ugh. Idris would ruin it so badly. But at least it would make people look more fondly on the Stallone version by comparison.. Rob Schneider's last great role! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 Judge Dredd is one of the few characters there's actually a decent argument to keep white, he's the ultimate by-the-book arsehole cop for a totalitarian regime. He doesn't have much personality beyond following the word of the law to the extreme and you never see his face, he's essentially a satire of wanker police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, Bellenda Carlisle said: Judge Dredd is one of the few characters there's actually a decent argument to keep white, he's the ultimate by-the-book arsehole cop for a totalitarian regime. He doesn't have much personality beyond following the word of the law to the extreme and you never see his face, he's essentially a satire of wanker police. Funnily enough, there was a bit of controversy about his race in the very early days. From Wiki: In Carlos Ezquerra's original design, Dredd had large lips, "to put a mystery as to his racial background".[30] Not all of the artists who worked on the strip were told of this. Mike McMahon drew Dredd as a black man, while Brian Bollandand Ron Smith drew him as white. The strip was not yet printed in colour, and this went unnoticed. The idea was dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Cod Eye Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 I just don't understand this. I'm physically disabled(pretty badly these days), and through support groups/charities I have met and become friends with loads of people with various levels of disabilities, ranging from some with so-called "invisible" disabilities to those that have had to change nearly every aspect of their lives. I honestly don't think any of us would be offended by a non-disabled actor playing the part of a disabled person. The key would be how much research they put into the role, and how much accuracy and respect they put into the role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted August 31, 2018 Moderators Share Posted August 31, 2018 13 minutes ago, Bellenda Carlisle said: Judge Dredd is one of the few characters there's actually a decent argument to keep white, he's the ultimate by-the-book arsehole cop for a totalitarian regime. He doesn't have much personality beyond following the word of the law to the extreme and you never see his face, he's essentially a satire of wanker police. It's 2018, dickhead pigs can be any race! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.