Treacle Toes
Time
It's important. It's re-writing history through popular culture. There will be people who don't know who will believe these depictions. I hate that.
Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?
- Thread starter Orang Utan
- Start date
It's important. It's re-writing history through popular culture. There will be people who don't know who will believe these depictions. I hate that.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, which is why I pointed out from the beginning that my argument was 'in principle' and in a hypothetical situation where casting decisions weren't based on racism. I didn't say those conditions always exist. My point was that, in principle, I have no objection to a white actor playing a black character if the decision to cast him is not a racist one, which racism would include institutional racism in the film industry, unconscious bias etc..
Racism is a bad thing in my opinion
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No it didn't.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Bye.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Although actually I think they have browned up the baddie. FFS.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
No, I'm not suggesting that was the case at all - it probably never even occurred to them that they would cast a white person. It was just the first example I could think of of a modern Indian character. (Which in itself doesn't say much for Hollywood's ability to accurately represent reality in its casting.)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's not true - the great sphinx (singular) existed a 1000 years before the construction that the enslaved jews are supposed to be building at the time of exodus in the film.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
These seem to workas general principles but not everything is so clean-cut - what if the skin colour is slightly important, but it's more important that you want a really great actor? We seem to be agreed that Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi was acceptable...
Athos
Well-Known Member
That they might be more able to portray the totality of the character (which, presumably, you agree is more than simply a skin colour) better than any of the other applicants for the role.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You're the one re-writing history by using social media bullshit in place of two sorts of facts - historical and contemporary.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
No, I'm not suggesting that was the case at all - it probably never even occurred to them that they would cast a white person. It was just the first example I could think of of a modern Indian character. (Which in itself doesn't say much for Hollywood's ability to accurately represent reality in its casting.)
I don't know what the casting process was either. I half-remember some mumblings about them choosing a British actor rather than an Indian one, so these arguments go way past skin colour too.
In Korean churches Jesus looks Korean, in Africa he's black, in Europe he's north Italian
I don't know how people can deny that he was the son of God when he was 3 different races at the same time
I don't know how people can deny that he was the son of God when he was 3 different races at the same time
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Well, yeah - and I'm guilty of saying "Indian" when what I really mean is "brown-skinned", regardless of nationality. Mea culpa.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
and to me the point is also the baggage. Blackface has an inglorious golliwog melon eating shitty tradition of offensive caricature. Will we one day be able to move on from that and accept a white man in shaded makeup? that'd be great. Are we there yet? Not by a long shot.
I re-watched 'Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story' (don't judge me) the other day and there's a scene where bruce see's the hugely offensive Mickey Rooney character doing an offensive oriental stereotype. He leaves the cinema angry and weeping.
And thats a film from the 90's ffs. We just haven't got enough space from the real injustices and denigration non white people get as standard to start playing the platonic ideal clean slate cards.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I've not claimed that, have I?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh great, ninjaboy.
Athos
Well-Known Member
You've not really made a point.
Why are you so angry?
You don't have to go to work, you've got a nice lass who pays for you. Is that not what you wanted?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I didn't notice that in the thread (you said 'Indian character'), but I wasn't hypocrisy-hunting anyway.
Thimble Queen
Called away to another place
There's still no need to black up. Blackface is deeply offensive and has been used as a derogatory form of entertainment for whites about blacks. That is the point.. Can't you see the very real and direct link here?
I'm just going to end up repeating myself. Many people of colour on this thread have said it's not ok. I don't know why you are insisting it is.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
How far should the legislation go: can anyone other than a Hispanic person be allowed to play Zorro? If a remake of Tootsie was planned [heaven forbid], would the legislation decree that a woman must be selected for Dustin Hoffman's role?
Who should play Othello: an actor of sub-Saharan ancestry; or an Arab?
Speaking of brown: could an Iranian/Persian get the role of an Arab? Can an actor from the Indian subcontinent play an Arab or vice-versa?
Anthony Hopkins played Hitler in The Bunker. Hopkins isn't German to my knowledge: acceptable or not?
It's been said many times on the boards that the conept of race is a fabrication, that it doesn't reflect reality. That being the case, would it assist in destroying the fabrication, if race became a non issue in role casting: ie: Arnold Swarzenegger playing Chaka Zulu; Jet Li playing Abraham Lincoln; Danny Trejo playing Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. Etc.
I can't think of much blacking or browning up in recent films [apart from films where it's done with the express purpose of spoofing the practice, like White Chicks; or Tropic Thunder]. Yes, it has a bad history; but the real transgression comes in how the role is written: if the intent or the effect of the role as written is to be demeaning, or to make the character the butt of a racist joke, then that of course is not acceptable.
A colorblind society would be a nice place to live. Sad that we have such a long long way to go.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think Athos was more musing on the pure logic and accepts the ugly history.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Eh? I didn't say it was justified at all. I said that such thinking was shoddy.
And which post was C66's sarcastic response?
Last edited:
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I'm guessing you don't know who Omid Djalili is.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, I've acknowledged that there is some cultural baggage. But, I made the point earlier that there's a difference between 'blacking up' to ridicule people of colour, and using make-up to enable a white actor to play a black character.
Furthermore, I've not claimed that Hollywood is free of racism. I merely made the point that, in principle, having a white actor play a black character isn't necessarily intrinsically racist and, therefore, unacceptable in any circumstances.
And just because some people of colour have agreed with you, doesn't mean that I have to do the same. And, for the record, one of my posts has been 'liked' by a black man. Where does that leave us? An identity politics dead end.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
a) Tootsie is an excellent film.
b) Was that really the best example you could come up with? The Michael Dorsey character is a man.
Aside from that, you make an excellent point. From a privileged white perspective, it's easy to lazily categorise non-whites.
Similar threads
