Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

[butchersapron]

Eh? I didn't say it was justified at all. I said that such thinking was shoddy

Did i misread this post from athos where he was agreeing with you and that you then liked?:

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.

 

[butchersapron]

In tootsie the role is a man playing a woman. Not a woman. That's why i brought up vic and bob earlier - them playing otis and marvin wasn't them playing otis and marvin but two men playing men playing otis and marvin.

 

[Thimble Queen]

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.

Yes and I made the point that you can't divorce the frankly disgusting history of blackface with blackface today whether it's for acting or anything else.

You don't have to agree with me, I'm not suggesting that, but perhaps when people with lived experience of racism tell you something you could take a step back, listen and think about what they have to say.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

'Black man' is not a specific role, like 'clown', or 'fireman'. It's a description of skin color. The people within the skin are as varied in manner and personality as.... as white people are. Not sure why the best actor in the world would be unable to learn the mannerisms of another person... who just happens to have a different skin color. Like a person with red hair playing another person who happens to be a brunette.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

'Black man' is not a specific role

Sometimes it is.

 

[Orang Utan]

Did i misread this post from athos where he was agreeing with you and that you then liked?:

I'm not sure why that post was liked. I don't agree with that position.

 

[Orang Utan]

'Black man' is not a specific role, like 'clown', or 'fireman'.

Unfortunately it is. I recently noticed an early Samuel L Jackson role which was just like that. Hang on.....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Unfortunately it is....

There might be some truth in saying that many 'black' or 'brown' roles as written for film, are reiterations of stereotypes.

If that's the case, is the thread making the case that these stereotypical roles should be reserved for black actors?

Once again: the problem is with the roles as written by the screenwriters. What is unacceptable is the writing of demeaning or simplistic, stereotypical roles.

 

[Athos]

Yes and I made the point that you can't divorce the frankly disgusting history of blackface with blackface today whether it's for acting or anything else.

You don't have to agree with me, I'm not suggesting that, but perhaps when people with lived experience of racism tell you something you could take a step back, listen and think about what they have to say.

I've listened and thought. I just disagree.

How much thought have you given this?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Isn't that example shifting the convo towards plot 'devices', type casting etc and therefore part of the wider context and instituationalised culture within film making.

For me the issue here is Exodus is supposedly not a made up story and as such an historical reinactment of sorts.

If it were a contemporary portrayal of the 'story' and was a exploration of the narrative, it wouldn't matter so much...it would be about the message/the morals/the human behaviour and therefore it wouldn't matter where it was/is set and who played what roles.

For example, Romeo and Juliet has been done to death, a massive range of contexts etc...which works because it's about the 'story'.

 

[gentlegreen]

I hear someone read a line from "Tom Sawyer" the other day that was difficult to hear even in context - are certain books never to be performed ?

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't that example shifting the convo towards plot 'devices', type casting etc and therefore part of the wider context and instituationalised culture within film making.

For me the issue here is Exodus is supposedly not a made up story and as such an historical reinactment of sorts.

If it were a contemporary portrayal of the 'story' and was a exploration of the narrative, it wouldn't matter so much...it would be about the message/the morals/the human behaviour and therefore it wouldn't matter where it was/is set and who played what roles.

What do you think counts as historical re-enactment? And given that you are now placing some priority and connection on this and casting choices then why a) did you just do the opposite and circulate duff info on both fronts and b) why do you think there is one easy answer to how the participants must be portrayed?

 

[Citizen66]

'Black man' is not a specific role, like 'clown', or 'fireman'. It's a description of skin color. The people within the skin are as varied in manner and personality as.... as white people are. Not sure why the best actor in the world would be unable to learn the mannerisms of another person... who just happens to have a different skin color. Like a person with red hair playing another person who happens to be a brunette.

You just have to watch Dick Van Dyke doing cockney to know there's a wealth of folk in East London who could have done better.

 

[spanglechick]

Tropic Thunder?

That was "blacking up" really, and was knowingly post-ironic or something. And they got shit for it even then. I think Fisher Stevens did too, with his comedy Apu-style Indian, but I don't remember anyone criticising Ben Kingsley for doing Ghandi.

it wasn't post ironic at all. Similarly to "Tootsie", the Robert Downey Jnr character was a white (Australian - clearly Russell Crowe-alike), up himself actor who took his 'craft' so seriously that he thought it made blacking up acceptable. That was the point. The character's a cock because he thinks blacking up is ok.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Isn't that example shifting the convo towards plot 'devices', type casting etc and therefore part of the wider context and instituationalised culture within film making.

For me the issue here is Exodus is supposedly not a made up story and as such an historical reinactment of sorts.

If it were a contemporary portrayal of the 'story' and was a exploration of the narrative, it wouldn't matter so much...it would be about the message/the morals/the human behaviour and therefore it wouldn't matter where it was/is set and who played what roles.

For example, Romeo and Juliet has been done to death, a massive range of contexts etc...which works because it's about the 'story'.

Meaning that in the interest of historical accuracy, any actor in the lead role of a film about the life of Jesus, should be a jew.

p.s. Romeo and Juliet is a work of fiction.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You just have to watch Dick Van Dyke doing cockney to know there's a wealth of folk in East London who could have done better.

I think Dick van Dyke is great in that role: 'step in time!'

 

[Buddy Bradley]

That was the point. The character's a cock because he thinks blacking up is ok.

Thank you, apparently today is the day when I get blatantly obvious things explained to me.

 

[Citizen66]

I think Dick van Dyke is great in that role: 'step in time!'

Great in that role. Not a convincing cockney though!

 

[spanglechick]

I hear someone read a line from "Tom Sawyer" the other day that was difficult to hear even in context - are certain books never to be performed ?

Without the perspective of a modern context? No. It's neither desirable nor possible.

So, "The Taming of the Shrew" is a Shakespearean comedy in which a woman is forced into the ownership of a man she hates, who then systemically abuses and breaks her down until she has a psychological breakdown and capitualtes to his whims. It's fucking horrific. Could you stage it now? Yes - it would be fascinating. Could you stage it *as a comedy*...? of course fucking not.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Meaning that in the interest of historical accuracy, any actor in the lead role of a film about the life of Jesus, should be a jew.

I don't know why you're insisting on taking such a ridiculous stance with your examples. The thread is clearly about appearances, why are you trying to make it about anything else?

 

[Thimble Queen]

How much thought have you given this?

Are you for real?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Meaning that in the interest of historical accuracy, any actor in the lead role of a film about the life of Jesus, should be a jew.

Erm, can you tell a every Jewish person by looking at them then?

p.s. Romeo and Juliet is a work of fiction.

I know! It was just the first thing to come into my head to illustrate a transferrable story not that I think it's real ffs!

 

[spanglechick]

Thank you, apparently today is the day when I get blatantly obvious things explained to me.

if you understand things and don't need them explaining, you probably want to show that you understand them when you mention them, instead of talking rubbish about "post ironic" whatever.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

if you understand things and don't need them explaining, you probably want to show that you understand them when you mention them, instead of talking rubbish about "post ironic" whatever.

I thought the phrase "knowingly post ironic or something" was sufficiently pseudo-intellectual to adequately convey my understanding of the 'joke'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't know why you're insisting on taking such a ridiculous stance with your examples. The thread is clearly about appearances, why are you trying to make it about anything else?

Because it's about what things constitute fundamental differences between people. Some of us believe that skin color is an incidental, like hair color, or height.

 

[spanglechick]

I thought the phrase "knowingly post ironic or something" was sufficiently pseudo-intellectual to adequately convey my understanding of the 'joke'.

nope - it sounded like you thought it was a valid example of blacking up to add to the thread, because you didn't buy their excuse for it.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Because it's about what things constitute fundamental differences between people. Some of us believe that skin color is an incidental, like hair color, or height.

Those all pertain to appearance, though; being Jewish does not.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

nope - it sounded like you thought it was a valid example of blacking up to add to the thread, because you didn't buy their excuse for it.

Well then you have misunderstood.

 

[Orang Utan]

Unfortunately it is. I recently noticed an early Samuel L Jackson role which was just like that. Hang on.....

Yup, Black Guy in Sea of Love

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Erm, can you tell a every Jewish person by looking at them then?

No; but I'd be prepared to make a wager that the historical jesus didn't look much like this:

That's Ted Neely, btw.