Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

Are you for real? Blacking up or browning up whatever is not ok under any circumstance.

I disgree. Blacking up is not acceptable when it's to poke fun at people of colour, and it's not acceptable if it is a way to avoid employing people of colour. But, if the process is fair and the casting director considers a white actor to be the most able to play a particular role, then I can't really see what the issue is. Actors pretend to be someone they're not all the time.
 
aaand now delilah's screwed him by chopping his dredds off while he was asleep. No hair= no godly superstrength
 
I disgree. Blacking up is not acceptable when it's to poke fun at people of colour, and it's not acceptable if it is a way to avoid employing people of colour. But, if the process is fair and the casting director considers a white actor to be the most able to play a particular role, then I can't really see what the issue is. Actors pretend to be someone they're not all the time.

Blacking up has a very iffy history which factors into it heavily.
This is what the idiots failed to take into account when they had a massive wobbler about Idris Elba in the Thor film.
 
Why not? Actors play all sorts of parts. As long as the process for recruiting them is fair i.e. doesn't discriminate in favour of white actors, then I see no reason in principle why a white actor shouldn't play a 'brown' character, if the make-up is good enough.
My point is that there is no good reason for r a white actor to brown up as there are always brown actors who can do the role. It's shocking that it is seen as acceptable. Radio 4 still employs posh actors to put on funny foreign accents when the UK has plenty of actors from everywhere who can do the job far more convincingly.
 


That's a valid criticism of this film, and the casting policy. But it's not an argument against the wider principle, which is what I was addressing in response to OU's post. In fact, the author of that article seems to agree with the point I made: "I could even accept him going the Louis CK route of 'the best actor gets the job regardless of if race makes sense' and casting Merly Streep as Tuya, Benicio Del Toro as Moses and Choi Min-Sik as Rhamses for all I care."
 
Well, yes - although I thought Orang Utan was making the point in the OP that white actors in blackface is a lot more incendiary than white actors playing brown (north africans, indians) people.

But Hollywood obviously feels it's different.
So is there someone sat on the Hollywood casting board deciding whether a role requires a skintone dark enough to be called black, in which case they need a black actor, but otherwise it's ok to brown-up a white actor?

"Hmm, is this shade of skin too dark? Maybe we need someone black?"
"Nah, he's brown. We're cool"

:hmm:
 
I disgree. Blacking up is not acceptable when it's to poke fun at people of colour, and it's not acceptable if it is a way to avoid employing people of colour. But, if the process is fair and the casting director considers a white actor to be the most able to play a particular role, then I can't really see what the issue is. Actors pretend to be someone they're not all the time.
How would a white actor ever be a more acceptable choice than a brown one?
 
Isn't you getting something totally wrong academic? To you? To me - to those adding this to the long list of stuff abgut religion you know sweet fa about?
There are by all accounts no contemporaneous accounts and those accounts there are have him stating that the basic tenets of the old religion still stood.
 
My point is that there is no good reason for r a white actor to brown up as there are always brown actors who can do the role. It's shocking that it is seen as acceptable. Radio 4 still employs posh actors to put on funny foreign accents when the UK has plenty of actors from everywhere who can do the job far more convincingly.
They strictly employ posh actors to do all british accents.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean you get to play both black and white characters if you're averaging out at the right shade of brown?
 
I disgree. Blacking up is not acceptable when it's to poke fun at people of colour, and it's not acceptable if it is a way to avoid employing people of colour. But, if the process is fair and the casting director considers a white actor to be the most able to play a particular role, then I can't really see what the issue is. Actors pretend to be someone they're not all the time.

That's a very simplistic view. There's a history of oppression and humiliation around blacking up which can't be divorced from it whatever the attempted justification. There are plenty of actors of colour. There is absolutely no need to have a white person black up. It's something that clearly belongs in the dustbin of history.
 
My point is that there is no good reason for r a white actor to brown up as there are always brown actors who can do the role. It's shocking that it is seen as acceptable. Radio 4 still employs posh actors to put on funny foreign accents when the UK has plenty of actors from everywhere who can do the job far more convincingly.

But who is the best actor for the role is a matter for the film maker, and, as long as that decision isn't made on a racist basis, I see no problem with it.
 
A friend of mine played a mute warrior in Prince Of Persia, while Jake Gyllenhall played the lead. He could easily have played him and he wouldn't have needed any fake tan. :mad:

But then with no 'name' the film wouldn't get a backer. And if it did it would be dubious that it would make money - no STAR.

And the money is what Hollywood is all about, innit?
 
1. There are no contemporaneous accounts and those accounts there are have him stating that the basic tenets of the old religion still stood.
wtf are you on about - you kickd off by claming either christianss or jews for the violence meted out to christ rather than actual proper pagans - and that this is therefore the key to those religions and now you are claiming something both did not exist and that they did and made specific claims. And nn, your confused undertsanding of christian theology is wrong about the old law and the new law and the supercession of the former. Silly athiest.
 
Good question. If casting is important. If you have the acting ability and your phenotype fits the role why not?

So is a little bit of 'tanning up' or 'paling out' allowed under those circumstances just as a little fine-tuning?
 
That's a valid criticism of this film, and the casting policy. But it's not an argument against the wider principle, which is what I was addressing in response to OU's post. In fact, the author of that article seems to agree with the point I made: "I could even accept him going the Louis CK route of 'the best actor gets the job regardless of if race makes sense' and casting Merly Streep as Tuya, Benicio Del Toro as Moses and Choi Min-Sik as Rhamses for all I care."
You appear to be suggesting that there arw no non-white actors capable of playing a role as well as white actors like Meryl Streep.
 
Back
Top Bottom