Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

[Citizen66]

So, are you flip-flopping again? Do you agree with me, or not?

Yes I agree that blacking up wouldn't be offensive if we lived in happy clappy land.

But in the context of this thread I think it is.

 

[8ball]

Holy crap, there's a 3?

That was exactly my thought.

 

[Fez909]

As I've said, the point I was making doesn't require history to be erased.

I know, and nor does mine require you to concede that point.

Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character has to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.

 

[Athos]

Yes I agree that blacking up wouldn't be offensive if we lived in happy clappy land.

But in the context of this thread I think it is.

In the context of contemporary Hollywood, I would agree with you. And have throughout.

What I disagreed with was poptyping's absolutist position that it could never be acceptable, even when the decision to cast a white actor in a black role wasn't racist. A position you now seem to agree with.

 

[Athos]

I know, and nor does mine require you to concede that point.

Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character has to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.

Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role. That's been my position from the outset. And that's what poptyping was denying. Do you?

 

[8ball]

Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character has to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.

In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?

 

[DotCommunist]

That was exactly my thought.

one of those VHS 'classics' of my youth. The local indy video shop was closing down and had tapes of execrable quality films for 50p a pop. Sometimes billed as 'crocodile dundee in LA'

Of course Mick was never a racist, as the second and first films pointed out heavily he was tight with the abororiginal aussies.

 

[8ball]

Of course Mick was never a racist, as the second and first films pointed out heavily he was tight with the abororiginal aussies.

I didn't realise he was a racist these days.

 

[Fez909]

In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?

If the skin colour wasn't important, why bother doing blackface? It's just a character then, not a black character.

 

[Fez909]

Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role. That's been my position from the outset. And that's what poptyping was denying. Do you?

I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.

Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?

 

[spanglechick]

In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?

some narratives become confusing, if not meaningless if "colourblind casting" is employed. Stories about, say, how much biologically related people look like each other would be one example.

Clearly in our own universe, even in the utopian future being hypothesised, people may want to tell stories about the racist past.

 

[Santino]

The majority of films and TV embrace a degree of verisimilitude with regard to casting, hence typically not casting women as men, 60-year olds as children or people as cats (except in specific, usually comedic, contexts).

There is no general expectation that actors are cast without any reference to their appearance.

 

[spanglechick]

I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.

Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?

well - in both cases, you might cast against the biology of the character because in this production you wanted to make a point. It happens relatively frequently in theatre. Gender-swapped productions of 'Hamlet', and an all-black production of 'Sus' ( a three-person play where two characters are racist coppers) leap to mind.

 

[Athos]

I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.

Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?

That's an implicitly racist line of thinking. It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity. Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera. Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?

 

[Citizen66]

In the context of contemporary Hollywood, I would agree with you. And have throughout.

What I disagreed with was poptyping's absolutist position that it could never be acceptable, even when the decision to cast a white actor in a black role wasn't racist. A position you now seem to agree with.

Do we really need to put footnotes at the bottom of our posts to head off philosophical arguments at the pass on a thread that is context driven?

When poptyping said 'under any circumstance' I really don't think they expected us to be discussing life on the moons of Jupiter.

 

[Athos]

Do we really need to put footnotes at the bottom of our posts to head off philosophical arguments at the pass on a thread that is context driven?

When poptyping said 'under any circumstance' I really don't think they expected us to be discussing life on the moons of Jupiter.

I made the hypothetical basis of my point clear; he/she continued to argue against it.

 

[Fez909]

well - in both cases, you might cast against the biology of the character because in this production you wanted to make a point. It happens relatively frequently in theatre. Gender-swapped productions of 'Hamlet', and an all-black production of 'Sus' ( a three-person play where two characters are racist coppers) leap to mind.

The gender swapping is different as it's equal. We're talking about white people pretending to be black, which doesn't happen the other way around. You don't get black actors putting on whitening cream to play the parts of European Kings, for example. David Oyelowo didn't white-up when he played Henry.

The play about racist coppers is also different as it's there to make a point about racism, not re-enforce it.

That's an implicitly racist line of thinking. It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity. Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera. Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?

I'm the racist now?

 

[spanglechick]

The majority of films and TV embrace a degree of verisimilitude with regard to casting, hence typically not casting women as men, 60-year olds as children or people as cats (except in specific, usually comedic, contexts).

There is no general expectation that actors are cast without any reference to their appearance.

Indeed - acting is specifically exempt from many employment discrimination laws.


The acting world is lousy with talented people of every conceivable appearance. In modern times too, it's a global employment market. Unless you are an amateur group with a small pool of actors etc, the argument of 'best person for the job' simply does not wash. The possible exception is that a film (or increasingly a flagship tv show) that can only attract funding if that specific part is a 'name' actor, and no name actors of that colour are willing. But then the other argument should step in: "tough, don't do it. Make another film/show/play, or wait until you have better funding and can cast a lesser 'name'."

And if you are a small amateur group - then do another fucking play. Your hobby is not justification for the offence.

 

[DotCommunist]

of course in Shakespeare time you had men playing womens roles on stage because of how actoring was already seen as a shoddy way to make ones p's and the social constraints on women at the time.

 

[spanglechick]

The gender swapping is different as it's equal. We're talking about white people pretending to be black, which doesn't happen the other way around. You don't get black actors putting on whitening cream to play the parts of European Kings, for example. David Oyelowo didn't white-up when he played Henry.

The play about racist coppers is also different as it's there to make a point about racism, not re-enforce it.

Sorry - yeah, I know you know all that. I just wanted to get in there and sew up the potential loophole before some twattock leapt in and said "what about the all-female version of [xyz] I saw?"

 

[Citizen66]

Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role. That's been my position from the outset. And that's what poptyping was denying. Do you?

Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.

 

[spanglechick]

of course in Shakespeare time you had men playing womens roles on stage because of how actoring was already seen as a shoddy way to make ones p's and the social constraints on women at the time.

And anyway, acting itself was an entirely different concept, really, prior to stanislavski. Audiences and writers alike were in no way aiming for verisimilitude. Not even close.

 

[Athos]

I'm the racist now?

No, I'm not saying you're racist; I'm saying that line of thinking is dodgy.

 

[Athos]

Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.

 

[Citizen66]

I'm the racist now?

I got the accusation early in the thread. Hence me busting the fucker's balls relentlessly from there on in.

 

[Citizen66]

It was in a hypothetical context.

 

[Athos]

It was in a hypothetical context.

Like you "busting my balls".

 

[8ball]

Clearly in our own universe, even in the utopian future being hypothesised, people may want to tell stories about the racist past.

And what better way to do that than by blacking up...

 

[8ball]

Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.

The swimming thing is really weird.

A mate of mine from work is an official at the big swimming tournaments and is quite insistent that if you're black the extra bone density makes it harder to swim, though this can be corrected with a slight difference in 'gait'.

I've looked it up and the difference doesn't look likely to lead to any real effect - is it true that this goes back to swimming pool policies in the States?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's an implicitly racist line of thinking. It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity. Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera. Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?

You're having to come up with rather extreme examples to make your point, though.

I don't think any actor should need to be from a particular background to play a part. That's where the 'acting' bit comes in. But Spanglechick is completely right that this is nothing whatever to do with a lack of suitably talented black actors - there are far more talented actors around than there are parts, for people of whatever colour. In an ideal world, this wouldn't matter. We don't live in that world, though, so it does matter, and the forces in operation that bring it about are to be resisted.

For me, this is a smaller issue than another one wrt parts for black actors. Being black is still a 'thing'. In the US, UK and elsewhere, being white is a default, 'neutral' position. This is changing very very slowly, but I still see an imbalance here - I still see very few non-white actors playing parts where the race of the character is not important. I think this has possibly changed more on TV (here in Britain, at least) than in the cinema. But I suspect that it is still a far greater impediment to black actors getting decent roles (or even auditions for decent roles) than the occasional white actor browning up.