Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?
- Thread starter Orang Utan
- Start date
Rudyard Kipling was a hero to most
but he never meant shit to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother fuck him and Snakes on a Plane.
but he never meant shit to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother fuck him and Snakes on a Plane.
ska invita
back on the other side
its not really about good enough, its about box office pulling power and producers wanting stars in lead roles whose inclusion greatly increases box office success...the market says that these actors tend to be white, though there are signs of that really changing this last decade in US films, in fact i read an article on this earlier in the year with some stats and looked at some increasingly good box office takings for films with non-white casts/leads and aimed at a broad audience, but i cant remember where now to find it again.
quick google, this article is kind of in the same ball-park
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...rend_movie_with_black_stars_overperforms.html
But one aspect of the film that shouldn’t have made folks count No Good Deed out of the running for box office glory? Its cast of black stars. In fact, it is the latest in a string of movies led by black actors that have “overperformed” at the box office, any number of which should have put to rest the still-prevailing notion that films with all or primarily black casts don’t do well at the box office.
Among the many films starring black actors not named Denzel Washington or Will Smith that leapt over low box office expectations: Jumping the Broom (a $15 million opening in 2011, behind Thor and Fast Five); Think Like a Man ($33.7 million, replacing The Hunger Games in the top spot); 42 ($27 million); The Best Man Holiday ($30 million, good for the No. 2 spot in November of 2013); Ride Along ($48 million, and the No. 1 spot for three straight weeks). And this is not to even mention Tyler Perry’s franchise of fairly steady hits."
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Is this a good time to mention Slumdog Millionaire? Not that it wasn't contentious in India, for reasons mostly related to the original plot of the novel it was based upon (written by an Indian writer) - but in terms of casting and ethnicity, they cast actors of direct Asian heritage (many of them Indian nationals acting in their second language), and the film won multiple big awards and was huge at the box office, despite the lack of a bankable name cast. And we're not talking low-budget indie film making, here.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
yes, it definitely can and does happen, and youd think it would be obvious that casting a film to make it as believable as possible would be the priority, but the problem here are the moneymen in hollywood, people who wouldnt think twice about doing a 180 on a films ending because it didnt score well with test audiences...its film-making by stats. Slumdog was a Film4 film so much more unlikely to be constrained by these idiotic decisions from financers/studio execs
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Film4 still needs to make money though. They're not a charity, but I think even they were surprised by its success. I doubt even Hollywood would have got away with having the main characters played by White US or British actors
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Which are both Film4 films. They've done very well out of him.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So they're not averse to insisting on 'names', then. I think Bremner would have made a great Renton. At least we have his Spud - Bremner's the best thing in that film.
ska invita
back on the other side
what recent hollywood films have had 'browning up' in them?
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
I saw Bremner as Renton in the play and he was brilliant. It was weird and not quite right to see McGregor playing him but Bremner made Spud his own totally.
ska invita
back on the other side
absolutely, but its clear from their output that there is some genuine desire in making interesting films there
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbf I thought McGregor was good, too. But this is one of many instances where acting ability is not the criterion. Bremner was basically told he wasn't quite good looking enough, wasn't he? Nowt to do with talent.
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
The new Bible epic in the OP.
Prince Of Persia
Lone Ranger
Star Trek (Khan is played by the whitest man ever)
And what the fuck was Angelina Jolie playing at in A Mighty Heart?
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Yes, but they still need hits. More so than the huge studios owned by behemoth multinationals who can afford the odd turkey.
BTW Michelle Gomez from Green Wing was in the play I saw and one of the Hobbits (Pip?) played Tommy
Last edited:
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
I imagine so. I wasn't criticising McGregor's performance. He was just harder to accept in that role as I'd already seen Brember doing it brilliantly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Really? I don't know the business model of Film4, but the multinationals need to send profit out. If Film4 is run on a basis that profits from hits are not sent out to investors but ploughed back in, they might have more space for the odd turkey, particularly if they're not forking out for the star fees.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
he's played by a white man in 'wrath of Khan'
is anyone trek geek enough to know, but I'm pretty sure the character isn't meant to be brown, khans just the name. He's a genetically engineered supersoldier
ska invita
back on the other side
they do, most producers dont want to lose money, but different production groups will approach a project with a different attitude - jsut look through film4s back catalogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film4_Productions and its clear they are interested in making quality films - certain hollywood studios could give a shit but for the return.
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Oh just thought of another browning up example: Dominic Cooper playing Saddam Hussein's double. Forget the name of the film.
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Yes, and the films are smaller scale too, not £200m FX extravaganzas.
It was Uday Hussein's double. The film was "The devil's double"
Orang Utan
Acceptable through usage
Oops
ska invita
back on the other side
i havent see any of these - just had a search of the posters now
looks like Star Trek is a dubious one, see DotComs post above.
bible epic and prince of persia looks like the old white jesus thing... sad but predictable.
The Mighty Heart one...hmm... well according to wiki
this might be a good case to put Athos's position to the test. I rate MIchael Winterbottom and imagine that this film is probably pretty good.
and then in lone ranger are we talking about jonny depp playing a native american
in a way this is in keeping with the original lone ranger, US western tradition, and also smacks of the need for a star on board.
of all of the ones on the list that seems the most offensive to me - it was out of order in the 30s for a whole variety of reasons, and to carry on the tradition now is pretty insulting i think. Even with the Athos meritocracy test, the bad history here is the most explicit and most inexcusable to repeat.
I dont think so, there are black film stars just as likely to draw huge audiences as white film stars - its a cynicism and conservatism by studio execs thats to blame.
this is the big question with pop culutre - is it a case of The Pubic Gets What The Public Wants - Thats Entertainment - or is it a market-driven spiralling down to a lowest common denominator. I think its the second - audiences tastes can be nurtured and challenged and whatsmore are probably several steps ahead what we are fed.
The whole movie star thing is total bullshit. Talk shows with actors prattling on make me want to break something. Of all the people in the world actors are way down the list of people who I want to hear being interviewed. The industry happily turns them into gods with fawning devotees. I want an actor to be anonymous - i want to know nothing about them and ideally not be able to tell that its them in the film. Gary Oldman and Ben Kingsely are two big name actors who manage to pull this off for me despite their fame whereas Jonnny Depp is poison to a film for me. Its impossible to suspend your disbelief with someone like that - not a problem in a pantomime like Pirates of the Caribbean, but anything more serious and its all over.
Studios should be braver - Star Wars was a smash with a cast of relative unknowns - people believed the characters as the actors didnt have that much baggage. The 3 new ones are shit for the same reason - oh look, theres keira knightly, theres samuel jackson, theres ewan mcgregor. shite.
i think hollywood in the 70s was less afraid of this and aspired to some kind of realism in its films - nowadays fantasy dominates and the fact that its Actor X as Character Y is accepted as part of the spectacle...through talk shows we're sold that the demystifying of the role is part of the fun of it.
i think its all this kind of industry shit that makes the 'browning up' still hang around longer than it should do....there are so many actors out there and so many interesting films that could be made...save for the odd exception the mechanics of the industry just doesnt allow these films to be made. The model is so limiting that filmmakers end up having to push circles through square holes, and that includes casting. i blame the bosses!
It all comes down to the essential fact that there is no white actor good enough to play an explicitly black character better than a black actor. Simple as.
8ball
Now containing implausible plot armour
Are we going round again - that'll be another 12 pages at least...
How come no one complained about Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi?
Similar threads
