Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

[Athos]

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.

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.

I accept that it's not without baggage, and so can seem crass.

 

[Orang Utan]

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.

I think choosing a white actor when there are non-white actors who are as capable is explicitly racist.

 

[8ball]

I think choosing a white actor when there are non-white actors who are as capable is explicitly racist.

I think you mean implicitly.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

I think choosing a white actor when there are non-white actors who are as capable is explicitly racist.

Like felixthecat said, it's not entirely whether they are "as capable" at acting - they also need to be "as capable" at bringing in a mainstream movie audience and making back the millions of dollars invested in the film.

 

[gentlegreen]

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.

Do you really consider the Bible as a historical document worthy of your efforts ?

 

[8ball]

Like felixthecat said, it's not entirely whether they are "as capable" at acting - they also need to be "as capable" at bringing in a mainstream movie audience and making back the millions of dollars invested in the film.

Important point. Not sure how defensible it is as an 'ought' but it works as an 'is'.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think you mean implicitly.

Yes, I was wrong. I meant blatantly.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Like felixthecat said, it's not entirely whether they are "as capable" at acting - they also need to be "as capable" at bringing in a mainstream movie audience and making back the millions of dollars invested in the film.

Why does this financial pulling power inequality exist do you think?

 

[Orang Utan]

Do you really consider the Bible as a historical document worthy of your efforts ?

The Bible is a very worthy historical document.

 

[Athos]

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.

It wasn't my words; it was a quote.

But, for argument's sake, if I was a casting director who considered Meryl Streep to be the best actress in the world (not a particularly controversial opinion), ought I to give the part to a less able actor on account of her race?

 

[butchersapron]

Do you really consider the Bible as a historical document worthy of your efforts ?

Of course it is.

 

[Orang Utan]

It wasn't my words; it was a quote.

But, for argument's sake, if I was a casting director who considered Meryl Streep to be the best actress in the world (not a particularly controversial opinion), ought I to give the part to a less able actor on account of her race?

Which is where legislation should take over. Directors/casting shouldn't have that power

 

[Athos]

I think choosing a white actor when there are non-white actors who are as capable is explicitly racist.

If they're 'as capable' then of course it's wrong to make the decision based on race; I said so in my first post.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Why does this financial pulling power inequality exist do you think?

How about you try to be a little less condescending?

 

[Orang Utan]

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"

300"s Xerxes is pretty much blacked up

 

[Athos]

Which is where legislation should take over. Directors/casting shouldn't have that power

You think there should be legislation to ensure that all roles are played by people of the same ethnicity as the character, regardless of the relative acting ability of the applicants?

 

[Orang Utan]

If they're 'as capable' then of course it's wrong to make the decision based on race; I said so in my first post.

Do you really think there is ever a situation where a white actor would do a better job than a non-white one?

 

[8ball]

You think there should be legislation to ensure that all roles are played by people of the same ethnicity as the character, regardless of the relative acting ability of the applicants?

We'll need a central register of acceptable phenotype ranges...

 

[Orang Utan]

You think there should be legislation to ensure that all roles are played by people of the same ethnicity as the character, regardless of the relative acting ability of the applicants?

I think acting ability is a red herring here. There's always someone who looks the part who can also act the part. Actors are ten-a-penny

 

[Citizen66]

It wasn't my words; it was a quote.

But, for argument's sake, if I was a casting director who considered Meryl Streep to be the best actress in the world (not a particularly controversial opinion), ought I to give the part to a less able actor on account of her race?

I don't think the best white actor in the world is good enough to play a more convincing black man than a black man could.

 

[Athos]

Do you really think there is ever a situation where a white actor would do a better job than a non-white one?

Yes. There could be a situation where two actors are considered for a part and the better of those two actors is white.

 

[Athos]

I don't think the best white actor in the world is good enough to play a more convincing black man than a black man could.

Why not?

 

[Treacle Toes]

How about you try to be a little less condescending?

What was condescending about my question? I don't think it was.There are reasons why White actors are promoted, casted and therefore known more in hollywood/more likely to draw audiences, even today. My question was to see if you knew that as your point seemed to be removing that important context and those details from the discussion.

 

[Citizen66]

Why not?

For real?

 

[Orang Utan]

Yes. There could be a situation where two actors are considered for a part and the better of those two actors is white.

I don't think there could be.

 

[Citizen66]

Why not?

Maybe I could act you better than you could?

 

[Athos]

I think acting ability is a red herring here. There's always someone who looks the part who can also act the part. Actors are ten-a-penny

If they are really as good, then I agree that they ought not to be excluded from the role on account of their race.

 

[8ball]

Maybe I could act you better than you could?

Cos all black people are the same, so any one can play any other, right?

 

[Athos]

Maybe I could act you better than you could?

Yeah, 'cos all black people are alike. Your position is implicitly racist.

 

[Citizen66]

Of course there's the missing context of black people getting fewer roles than white people missing here.