Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

[Athos]

The Mighty Heart one...hmm... well according to wiki

The announcement of the casting of Angelina Jolie in the role of Mariane Pearl drew criticism within the African American community. Orville Lloyd Douglas, a pop critic, has criticized the casting because, he said, "Jolie is white" and Mariane Pearl is "mixed race". In fact, Pearl is the multi-racial daughter of a Dutch-Jewish father and an Afro-Chinese-Cuban mother. Pearl personally chose Jolie to play the lead in A Mighty Heart.

In response to casting complaints, Pearl said "I have heard some criticism about her casting, but it is not about the color of your skin. It is about who you are. I asked her to play the role—even though she is way more beautiful than I am—because I felt a real kinship to her. She put her whole heart into it, and I think she understood why we should do this movie. We had something to say that we knew we should say together."

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.

Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).

But hopefully some well-meaning white, male liberal can tell her why she's wrong. Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.

 

[Athos]

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.

Essentially essentialism.

Clearly, it's not 'simple as'.

 

[8ball]

How come no one complained about Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi?

Apparently he's half Indian.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Apparently he's half Indian.

is he indeed?

What about Christopher Lee as Jinnah?

 

[DotCommunist]

I preffered him in sexy beast tbh

 

[8ball]

What about Christopher Lee as Jinnah?

We didn't do that one.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I preffered him in sexy beast tbh

Have you seen Ray Winstone as Sitting Bull, that was a stunning performance

 

[Mation]

Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).

But hopefully some well-meaning white liberal can tell her why she's wrong. Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.

Mariane Pearl obviously just wanted Angelina Jolie to play her in a film. What she says about it doesn't suggest that she thought that there is no black actor capable of playing her. It was a personal decision, neither right nor wrong. It has no bearing on the argument. It absolutely doesn't change the fact that white actors have long been systematically preferred over black actors (for certain roles) because there's lots of racism about.

Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.

 

[Athos]

Mariane Pearl obviously just wanted Angelina Jolie to play her in a film.

I agree. And she gave her reasons; essentially, that she thought Jolie the right person for the job, regardless of her skin colour.

What she says about it doesn't suggest that she thought that there is no black actor capable of playing her.

I agree, she didn't suggest it. And I don't believe it either.

It was a personal decision, neither right nor wrong. It has no bearing on the argument.

Her opinion on whether or not it can ever be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role has as much bearing as any of the opinions expressed here.

It absolutely doesn't change the fact that white actors have long been systematically preferred over black actors (for certain roles) because there's lots of racism about.

I agree (and have from the outset).

Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.

No. Racism in Hollywood (and wider society) results in discrimination against black actors (which, it goes without saying, I abhor). The principle that I argued i.e. that it is wrong to say that there are no circumstances in which it is ok for a white actor to play a non-white character, even where those circumstances include the decision not being based on racism (implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious), does not (and, as a matter of logic, cannot, in itself) lead to discrimination against black actors.


Don't get me wrong. I don't like blacking up where it's a way to ridicule black people, or where it's a way to avoid employing black people. And I don't doubt that there are contemporary instances of blacking up which fall into both of those categories, particularly the latter. And, not only do I condemn casting decision that are born out of a personal dislike of black people, but I also condemn the studios' decisions not to cast black actors because of the box-office receipts, and the audience's attitudes that produce that situation. However, notwithstanding all that, like Mariane Pearl, I can conceive of certain situations where it would be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role, albeit that I think it'd have to be a very clear-cut case before I personally thought that such a casting decision was justified, given the contentious and offensive history of 'blacking up'.

I understand that you disagree. But there's little point going round and round.

 

[ska invita]

Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).

But hopefully some well-meaning white, male liberal can tell her why she's wrong. Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.

i think its not that unlikley that the reason Mariane wanted it is also because Angelina would greatly increase the box office taking and Mariane would make a lot more money out of it as a result. She wouldve been on a percentage.

The other issue with this film is that Mariane has a Dutch-Jewish father and an Afro-Chinese-Cuban mother. In racist discourse that makes her black, but no doubt she would identify with all parts of her heritage and based on that Anglina playing the part is less of a problem, particularly as the make-up job wasn't too bad. If Mariane had african hertiage on both sides it would be that much more impossible to pull off.

I agree with Athos to a point in that theres some grey area here and room for possible discretion, but if we want a hard and fast rule the best has to be cast someone whose ethnicity suits the part. To make an exception to that - and pull out all the stops in the make up department - means there has to be a really good justification. Johnny Depp in Lone Ranger isnt one. In fact its going to be rare that the case can be made.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.

Hence why the people who tend to be arguing from a logical position tend to be...

 

[ska invita]

Have you seen Ray Winstone as Sitting Bull, that was a stunning performance

 

[Athos]

Hence why the people who tend to be arguing from a logical position tend to be...

Just to be clear. Are you suggesting that my argument is motivated by racism on my part?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Just to be clear. Are you suggesting that my argument is motivated by racism on my part?

Why would you think that?

 

[Citizen66]

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.

Are you saying all black people look alike?

 

[Athos]

Why would you think that?

Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.

 

[Citizen66]

Are we going round again - that'll be another 12 pages at least...

Looks like it

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.

I think that says more about you than it does me.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Are you saying all black people look alike?

Zulus fahsands of 'em

 

[Athos]

I think that says more about you than it does me.

So you weren't trying to hint that my argument was based on racism on my part?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

So you weren't trying to hint that my argument was based on racism on my part?

why would you think that?

 

[Athos]

why would you think that?

I've explained why I thought that you might be. If I'm wrong, that's great.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I've explained why I thought that you might be. If I'm wrong, that's great.

Where did you explain it?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.

Ah found it.

Why do you think it implies that and why do you think white people are more likely to justify discrimination?

 

[Athos]

Where did you explain it?

Post #436

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Post #436

see post #444

 

[Athos]

Ah found it.

Why do you think white people are more likely to justify discrimination?

Some white people are more likely to justify discrimination from which they benefit, because of that benefit.

But that's not why I took the stance I did (which, for the record, wasn't to defend discrimination).

I thought you were trying to hint that it was. If I got that wrong, then that's fine.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Some white people are more likely to justify discrimination from which they benefit, because of that benefit.

But that's not why I took the stance I did (which, for the record, wasn't to defend discrimination).

I thought you were trying to hint that it was. If I got that wrong, then that's fine.

Do you think it's possible to do things which lead to unintended consequences?

 

[Athos]

Do you think it's possible to do things which lead to unintended consequences?

Yes. But, your post implied that white people pursue that line argument because it results in white actors being cast (regardless of whether they are the best for the role); that's a causal link, not an unintended consequence.

 

[Thimble Queen]

For me...one of the lasting frustrations of conversations like these is that instead of dealing with/focusing on the way things are and why, endless hypotheticals are posed so that some people can give their positions credence and value. Those endless, pointless hypotheticals boil my piss, and are absolutely condescending/dismissive of the lives, experiences and intelligence of real people.

I agree mate. After Athos continually tagged and quoted me after i asked him not so politely to do one. I made this point to him on the cleaning thread derail. He conceded slightly. But then has continued to argue with citizen and others and minimise experience of POC. It's bang out of order.