Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

[SpookyFrank]

I use it here to mean the way that someone looks...for example my phenotype means I could be believed to be a number of different nationalities.

That makes sense I suppose. Human diversity being what it is, there's a lot you can't tell from simply looking at someone.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'm not sure what we're talking about - I guess different people are clearly talking about different things.

OU seems to be attempting to argue that his "half Pakistani" mate is automatically more suited to playing a Persian character than JG, who I have just discovered (because I really wasn't bothered to check until now) has a Jewish mother and a Swedish/English father, so I suspect that the subtleties of your point about phenotypes have passed him by.

I think the thing is that Pakistani people have a range of phenotypes, varying shades of brown, some very dark skinned and others much lighter skinned and everything inbetween. IME this is true and therefore are more aesthetically/phenotypically believable in that role than a White Welsh man?

 

[andysays]

Obviously what he is saying is that a subset of people are broadly similar enough in their overall appearance to get away with playing them in a film. You could probably finesse that statement by adding "...in the eyes of the US cinema-going public".

Johnny Canuck is right, though - there's as much sense in saying "that white guy shouldn't be playing an Egyptian" as there is in saying "that Pakistani guy can play an Egyptian". Either anyone can play any role, or everyone should only play roles suitable for their birthplace/ethnicity/gender/hair color/etc.

Well the implication of that first paragraph combined with various comments on the thread as a whole appears to include the idea that the US cinema-going public is only able to recognise the crudest dististinctions or difference anyway, otherwise we wouldn't have the suggestion that someone who is "half Pakistani" is an automatic choice for a Persian Prince.

Without meaning to, and without apparently recognising it, this whole suggestion seems to be in danger of pandering to the worst sort of white vs non-white othering and essentialism.

I tend to agree with JC3, and further point out that a significant part of being an actor is playing a role which is, to some extent at least, different from your actual real self.

 

[el-ahrairah]

ben kingsley then, isn't he half irish or something?

 

[andysays]

I think the thing is that Pakistani people have a range of phenotypes, varying shades of brown, some very dark skinned and others much lighter skinned and everything inbetween. IME this is true and therefore are more aesthetically/phenotypically believable in that role than a White Welsh man?

Thing is, you can say that about many/most nationalities.

 

[Athos]

Are you for real?

Entirely. You don't come over as if you've thought this through, at all. Rather that you're taking a knee-jerk position, absolutist and over-simplistic position. Essentially, you're saying that it is never alright for a white person to play a character who is not white (and that it never could be alright). Not only does that lack any rational basis when confronted with the hypothetical preconditions I set out i.e. that the casting decision was not based on racist grounds (explicit or implicit, direct or indirect), but it also results in the absurd nonsense alluded to above.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Thing is, you can say that about many/most nationalities.

Much more so now too, yes. For example, a film set in modern London. Main character is a Londoner, could choose anyone and it would work.

 

[butchersapron]

I think the thing is that Pakistani people have a range of phenotypes, varying shades of brown, some very dark skinned and others much lighter skinned and everything inbetween. IME this is true and therefore are more believable in that role than a White Welsh man?

Why - given what we know historically and what we don't know historically. Whether that's playing a persian or a hebrew. In fact, given we know the clear differentiation between black nubians and egyptians that was key for the egyptian royalty for millenia then then i reckon the welsh bloke would be in the lead.

 

[andysays]

I use it here to mean the way that someone looks...for example my phenotype means I could be believed to be a number of different nationalities.

Also, it's worth pointing out that phenotype has absolutely no connection to nationality. You and I both have the same nationality, even though we don't share the same "ethnic" background or phenotype.

Let's try to use language precisely here

 

[SpookyFrank]

Much more so now too, yes. For example, a film set in modern London. Main character is a Londoner, could choose anyone and it would work.

As long as it's not Natalie Potrman, her British accent sucks.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Also, it's worth pointing out that phenotype has absolutely no connection to nationality. You and I both have the same nationality, even though we don't share the same "ethnic" background or phenotype.

Let's try to use language precisely here

I haven't said it is completely. Although in some places where their has been less migration and ethnic mixing there is a smaller range IME. Moreover, I have used myself and my phenotype as an example of how it isn't. Equally with my comment about the range of phenotypes Pakistani people have too. I know how to use the word correctly. Thanks.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Let's try to use language precisely here

If we're being precise the word 'race' shouldn't be used at all when referring to humans, as we're not genetically diverse enough to have separate races in the sense a biologist would use the word. Bornean and Sumatran orang-utans would count as separate races, because there's a lot more difference between them than between any two human populations you care to name, even though they live on neighbouring islands.

Unfortunately humans insisted on inventing langauges and cultures and stuff to hide the fact that, genetically speaking, we're all horribly simillar.

 

[redsquirrel]

. Either anyone can play any role, or everyone should only play roles suitable for their birthplace/ethnicity/gender/hair color/etc.

Well that completely ignores the context of the piece of art.

In East is East, for example, there was obviously a clear choice to "match" the race of the actors to that of the characters they played, and I don't really see how anyone could criticise that. Now you could clearly remake East is East as a film where there was an open cast and the races of some of the characters and actors didn't match, it might even be a better more interesting film than the original which I don't really rate, but it quite clearly would be a different film.

In some pieces open casting will be the best method of choosing a cast in others some discrimination may be wanted to make the piece more effective.

 

[andysays]

I haven't said it is. In fact I have used myself and my phenotype as an example of how it isn't. Equally with my comment about the range of phenotypes Pakistani people have too. I know how to use the word correctly. Thanks.

I interpret this

I use it here to mean the way that someone looks...for example my phenotype means I could be believed to be a number of different nationalities.

as meaning that you could be believed to be a number of different nationalities (but perhaps not others) where someone of a different phenotype (me perhaps) could not be believed to be of the same number or specific range of nationalities, otherwise why mention your phenotype specifically?

Nationality is something quite different from ethnic background and different again from phenotype, or how your specific genetic inheritance manifests itself physically. I don't want to get sidetracked into a row over semantics, but the post I've quoted suggests that, though you may know the meaning of the word, you haven't on this occasion used it correctly

 

[andysays]

If we're being precise the word 'race' shouldn't be used at all when referring to humans, as we're not genetically diverse enough to have separate races in the sense a biologist would use the word.

I agree, and I have totally avoided the use of the word "race", and have deliberately put other words in quotes as an indication that I'm not happy with some of their connotations.

 

[Treacle Toes]

andysays I think you should read my edit. I've never been asked if I am Russian for example and until there are more people that look like me that are Russian and therefore seen as Russian it isn't going to happen. I don't believe I have used the term incorrectly, so we will have to disagree.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Rubbish, that completely ignores the context of the piece of art.

In East is East, for example, there was obviously a clear choice to "match" the race of the actors to that of the characters they played, and I don't really see how anyone could criticise that. Now you could clearly remake East is East as a film where the races of the characters and actors didn't match, it might even be a better more interesting film than the original which I don't really rate, but it quite clearly would be a different film.

It would depend if the characters' ethnic backgrounds had a bearing on the story, which in the case of East is East they do. We still live in a world where folks are not treated equally, so there are still stories to be told where the colour or nationality of the protagonists is a factor in what happens to them.

I don't buy 'colourblindness' as something to aspire to. We shouldn't have to ignore people's differences in order to treat everyone with fairness and decency.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It would depend if the characters' ethnic backgrounds had a bearing on the story, which in the case of East is East they do. We still live in a world where folks are not treated equally, so there are still stories to be told where the colour or nationality of the protagonists is a factor in what happens to them.

The ethnic and cultural diversity of the characters is central to the plot in East is East.

 

[andysays]

I don't see any indication of an edit

When you talk about you not being seen as Russian, do you mean in terms of nationality or ethnicity? because if you don't distinguish between the two, then you are simply adding to the confusion and my suspicion that you're failing to use language clearly.

Anyway, I'm not going to pursue this any further - I think the whole premise of the thread is mistaken, so I'm not going to quibble with you over what is a relatively small part of that

 

[Treacle Toes]

I don't seean y indication of an edit

I haven't said it is completely. Although in some places where there has been less migration and ethnic mixing there is a smaller range IME. Moreover, I have used myself and my phenotype as an example of how it isn't. Equally with my comment about the range of phenotypes Pakistani people have too. I know how to use the word correctly. Thanks.

See the part highlighted?

When you talk about you not being seen as Russian, do you mean in terms of nationality or ethnicity?

Both.

because if you don't distinguish between the two,then you are simply adding to the confusion and my suspicion that you're failing to use language clearly.

I disagree. I think the part I have highlighted in my edit covers it to a point.

Anyway, I'm not going to pursue this any further - I think the whole premise of the thread is mistaken, so I'm not going to quibble with you over what is a relatively small part of that

Yet you are still doing that. I don't mind if you disagree with me but if you keep insisting I am wrong and you are right you are keeping it going.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The ethnic and cultural diversity of the characters is central to the plot in East is East.

I think that's what I said. It's what I meant at any rate.

 

[Pickman's model]

slow news day?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I agree, and I have totally avoided the use of the word "race", and have deliberately put other words in quotes as an indication that I'm not happy with some of their connotations.

As the shitstorm of semantics we've unleashed on this thread proves, we don't really have any suitable connotation-free words to talk about these things. A pity we have to share our language with so many liars, bigots and idiots who are all too happy to use subtle concepts as blunt instruments so often that they no longer work properly

 

[andysays]

See the part highlighted?

Both.

I disagree. I think the part I have highlighted in my edit covers it to a point.

Yet you are still doing that. I don't mind if you disagree with me but if you keep insisting I am wrong and you are right you are keeping it going.

So that's the edit which there was no indication of, which presumably you made while I was writing my reply, in such a way that there is no trace of your original post, the one which I was actually answering.

There are many things I could continue to disagree with you over, and many specific points on which I feel you are wrong, but I'm calling it a day.

 

[Thimble Queen]

Entirely. You don't come over as if you've thought this through, at all. Rather that you're taking a knee-jerk position, absolutist and over-simplistic position. Essentially, you're saying that it is never alright for a white person to play a character who is not white (and that it never could be alright). Not only does that lack any rational basis when confronted with the hypothetical preconditions I set out i.e. that the casting decision was not based on racist grounds (explicit or implicit, direct or indirect), but it also results in the absurd nonsense alluded to above.

No. I haven't said any of that. I have said that it's not ok to black up.

 

[Treacle Toes]

So that's the edit which there was no indication of, which presumably you made while I was writing my reply, in such a way that there is no trace of your original post, the one which I was actually answering.

Eh? I was editting whilst you were responding and I didn't change the post entirely, I just added some points to the beginning of it which I feel are relevant to the point I was making. . There was intention to confuse, that's why i asked you to read it! It's not my fault the last edited thing didn't register!

There are many things I could continue to disagree with you over, and many specific points on which I feel you are wrong, but I'm calling it a day.

Fair enough.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't buy 'colourblindness' as something to aspire to. We shouldn't have to ignore people's differences in order to treat everyone with fairness and decency.

No, but the differences should be given the appropriate weight. Skin color should have no more significance than hair color.

The term 'color blindness' as used here doesn't mean that one is unable to tell the difference between dark or light skin; it means that no significance is attached to the physical difference per se - in the same way that people are able to visually distinguish between those with red hair and those who are brunette; but that no real significance is attached to it beyond personal aesthetic preference.

 

[xenon]

Obviously what he is saying is that a subset of people are broadly similar enough in their overall appearance to get away with playing them in a film. You could probably finesse that statement by adding "...in the eyes of the US cinema-going public".

Johnny Canuck is right, though - there's as much sense in saying "that white guy shouldn't be playing an Egyptian" as there is in saying "that Pakistani guy can play an Egyptian". Either anyone can play any role, or everyone should only play roles suitable for their birthplace/ethnicity/gender/hair color/etc.

Sure why not have a white Egyption, a black Roman. The problem is in the blacking / browning up for all the historical reasons there. If skin colour is so apparently vital to the depiction of a certain role, get an actor who resembles that person as is.

There's a similar situation with the roles given to disabled actors. i.e. an able bodied actor playing the part of a wheel chair user,as the most blatent example. There are of course far fewer disabled actors, so this is probably where the annaligy breaks down. But with out doubt, disabled actors are often overlooked in favour for someone who has to simulate their disability.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sure why not have a white Egyption, a black Roman. The problem is in the blacking / browning up for all the historical reasons there. If skin colour is so apparently vital to the depiction of a certain role, get an actor who resembles that person as is.

Oh yeah, for a minute there I forgot what the thread was actually about. If you're painting an actor a different colour, and actors who are already that colour are freely available, then that's a bit dodgy.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The difference between the original Full Monty script and the film sums this whole debate up for me