# Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

So many films, including Ridley Scott's newest Biblical epic, Exodus: Gods And Kings feature heavily made up white actors playing brown characters. 
Why is this acceptable? I would have thought it was frowned upon nowadays.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 2, 2014)

Given the subject matter is entirely bonkers .....

I hadn't realised how despicably violent the Jebus film was - total gore-fest and a box office smash.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

It isn't acceptable! Of course there are no decent Black or Brown actors around so they had no choice


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Given the subject matter is entirely bonkers .....
> 
> I hadn't realised how despicably violent the Jebus film was - total gore-fest and a box office smash.


Which film?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> It isn't acceptable! Of course there are no decent Black or Brown actors around so they had no choice


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.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Which film?


I believe it was called "The Passion of The Christ" .
I accidentally saw bits of it on an atheist video - they reckoned the longest bit without violence was about 6 minutes.

It shocked me, but then I won't even watch the news, let alone violent films or computer games.
The Abrahamic cults are extremely violent.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2014)

Perhaps some Brown actors refuse to play such parts on the grounds that the parts are not also suitable for a white actor.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Everyone in the bible was white, you only have to look at the pictures


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

It really isn't acceptable at all. It's massively fucked up and depressing.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So many films, including Ridley Scott's newest Biblical epic, Exodus: Gods And Kings feature heavily made up white actors playing brown characters.
> Why is this acceptable? I would have thought it was frowned upon nowadays.


Interesting question. I wonder, have there been any actual examples of 'browning up' in a modern day setting since Fisher Stevens in Short Circuit? Or to put it another way, is it purely reserved for stuff set thousands of years ago, when clearly everyone who mattered was white?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I believe it was called "The Passion of The Christ" .
> I accidentally saw bits of it on an atheist video - they reckoned the longest bit without violence was about 6 minutes.
> 
> It shocked me, but then I won't even watch the news, let alone violent films or computer games.
> The Abrahamic cults are extremely violent.


Who the eff do you think done all that violence on the christ?


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who the eff do you think done all that violence on the christ?


The Romans apparently did that to a lot of people around that time.
Making it into a death cult and forcing children to watch it 2,000 years later is a bad idea.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Interesting question. I wonder, have there been any actual examples of 'browning up' in a modern day setting since Fisher Stevens in Short Circuit? Or to put it another way, is it purely reserved for stuff set thousands of years ago, when clearly everyone who mattered was white?


I dunno. But how is it more acceptable if it's set in the past?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> The Romans apparently did that to a lot of people around that time.
> Making it into a death cult and forcing children to watch it 2,000 years later is a bad idea.


It's an 18 certificate isn't it? Who is forcing children to watch it?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2014)

I have only recently found out that some of the blacked-up minstrels in the old days in America were already black but wanted to exaggerate the effect.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So many films, including Ridley Scott's newest Biblical epic, Exodus: Gods And Kings feature heavily made up white actors playing brown characters.
> Why is this acceptable? I would have thought it was frowned upon nowadays.



Thinking about it this is a whole can of worms, What is white? People of indigenous European ancestry? North Europeans? Caucasians? 

Many people from the Middle East consider themselves to be white; are Italians White but Persians not?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> The Romans apparently did that to a lot of people around that time.
> Making it into a death cult and forcing children to watch it 2,000 years later is a bad idea.


So let's see - it wasn't anything to do with an Abrahamic cult but, in fact, people directly opposed to Abrahamic cults.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

What about vic and bob?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I dunno. But how is it more acceptable if it's set in the past?


It's not, obviously, it's just weird. Like Hollywood think nobody really knows what colour people were in Africa a few thousand years ago.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Interesting question. I wonder, have there been any actual examples of 'browning up' in a modern day setting since Fisher Stevens in Short Circuit? Or to put it another way, is it purely reserved for stuff set thousands of years ago, when clearly everyone who mattered was white?


Tropic Thunder?


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> ... made up white actors playing brown characters. Why is this acceptable?



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.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> 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.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

the Passion is an anti semetic piece of propaganda from the middle ages, and mel gibson is a cock of the highest order.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So let's see - it wasn't anyone who ahd anything to do with an Abrahamic cult but,in fact, people directly opposed to Abrahamic cults.


Isn't that purely academic ?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.


"blacking-up" / "browning-up" - same thing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.


Hank Azaria is white and got away with Apu in The Simpsons.
And Ben Kingsley is half-Indian. His real name is Krsna Banerjee!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.



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


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> "blacking-up" / "browning-up" - same thing.


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.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.



Here's a perspective you might enjoy 

https://medium.com/@DavidDWrites/yo...cotts-pretty-racist-exodus-movie-37471c4d7628


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Isn't that purely academic ?


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?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> but I don't remember anyone criticising Ben Kingsley for doing Ghandi.



TBF He is half-Indian.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> "blacking-up" / "browning-up" - same thing.


But Hollywood obviously feels it's different.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Hank Azaria is white and got away with Apu in The Simpsons.


True. Well, as far as I know - I'm not an Indian immigrant to America, for all I know there is a lot of anti-Simpsons sentiment in that community.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> 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.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.



Ben Kingsley is half Indian, isn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

apropos of nothing I've got a History Channel biblical epic on in the background (ma watching) and Samson is played by a black bloke with dreads. The bit where he slays five armed warriors with the jawbone of an ass is quality.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

aaand now delilah's screwed him by chopping his dredds off while he was asleep. No hair= no godly superstrength


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Ben Kingsley is half Indian, isn't he?



Yes, it's a stage name, he was born Krishna Pandit Bhanji.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Here's a perspective you might enjoy
> 
> https://medium.com/@DavidDWrites/yo...cotts-pretty-racist-exodus-movie-37471c4d7628




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._"


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.





Orang Utan said:


> 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"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> aaand now delilah's screwed him by chopping his dredds off while he was asleep. No hair= no godly superstrength





Intention is the simple key here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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?


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's a valid criticism of this film, and the casting policy.  But it's not an argument against the wider principle,



I think it is. I think these things are related and I think this is what OU's OP is about.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Does that mean you get to play both black and white characters if you're averaging out at the right shade of brown?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What about vic and bob?


Fair point. 
Though i suppose no-one could do what they do.
That justification sounds pretty shoddy though, when I run it through my mind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Does that mean you get to play both black and white characters if you're averaging out at the right shade of brown?



Good question. If casting is important. If you have the acting ability and your phenotype fits the role why not?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The strictly employ posh actors to do all british accents.



I think it's often the case that the acting schools require everyone to be able to do RP for a lot of roles regardless of their regional accent.


----------



## felixthecat (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.



You don't think there is racist bias in the casting of Hollywood movies?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> 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.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think it's often the case that the acting schools require everyone to be able to do RP for a lot of roles regardless of their regional accent.


In 2014.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.



You're totally missing the point.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> 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.





poptyping said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think you mean implicitly.


Yes, I was wrong. I meant blatantly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


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


The Bible is a very worthy historical document.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


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


Of course it is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


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


How about you try to be a little less condescending?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why not?


For real?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why not?


Maybe I could act you better than you could?


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Maybe I could act you better than you could?



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


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

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


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


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


Only if I get words put in my mouth that I haven't said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


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



Nah, the points been made. Not important though apparently. Wider context and that influence not important.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

Interesting how it's white people telling us it isn't racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


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


So you support blacking up now?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Interesting how it's white people telling us it isn't racist.



This. And when POC have said it is racist there are still non-poc posters insisting they don't see a problem with it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So you support blacking up now?


Only if done by professional artists on good actors.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Nah, the points been made. Not important though apparently. Wider context and that influence not important.


Bollocks - buddy brought in just that point in to explain - explain, not justify - casting decisions like this and you jumped right on them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Only if done by professional artists on good actors.


Are _you _saying that you support it or not?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 300"s Xerxes is pretty much blacked up



thats one of many wrongnesses in that film


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are _you _saying that you support it or not?


Of course I don't support it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are _you _saying that you support it or not?



I'm sure citizen can speak for themselves but it's clear to me when read in context of their other posts the one you quoted was sarcastic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I'm sure citizen can speak for themselves but it's clear to me when read in context of their other posts the one you quoted was sarcastic.


He has answered now - and _support _was the wrong word to use there as well - but given OU swing from being against it full stop to thinking it's justified in some cases and C66's sarcastic response to it, i thought i better check.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So you support blacking up now?



As I'm sure you realise, it's a little more nuanced than that.  But I don't think that black characters can only be played by black actors.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He has answered now - and _support _was the wrong word to use there as well - but given OU swing from being against it full stop to thinking it's justified in some cases and C66's sarcastic response to it, i thought i better check.



Fair. I didn't spot OU saying it was ok in some cases... I always thought OU was fairly spot on  *goes back to read posts*


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> As I'm sure you realise, it's a little more nuanced than that.  But I don't think that black characters can only be played by black actors.



That _could_ be reasonable, I think, but is quite dependent on the specifics of what you mean by 'black character'.
Also, if 'black characters' (assuming we all mean the same thing for a second) can only be played by black actors, would that mean that 'white characters' can only be played by white actors etc.?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> As I'm sure you realise, it's a little more nuanced than that.  But I don't think that black characters can only be played by black actors.



What justification is there for having a white person black up to play a black character?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> What justification is there for having a white person black up to play a black character?



And what if the white person plays the black character _without _blacking up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Bollocks - buddy brought in just that point in to explain - explain, not justify - casting declensions like this and you jumped right on them.



Who you swearing at? FUCK OFF yourself with this bullshit aggressiveness!  You know I ignore you, you also know why, yet you continue to pop up with this nasty, unnecessary, bullying act and think that's alright. It isn't. The comment you have quoted wasn't specifically aimed at BB anyway, more to Athos' contributions.

I asked a question. I didn't jump on them. I have also responded to BB accusing me of condescension. You and your bully boy routine isn't needed.  I've been active in the thread since the first few posts and therefore part of the discussion it will also be a cold day in hell before I let YOU dictate to me when I can post, how I might want to do that and misrepresent my contributions. It hasn't worked in years and it never will.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> And what if the white person plays the black character _without _blacking up.



What if? I don't understand the point your trying to make.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I asked a question. I didn't jump on them. I have also responded to BB accusing me of condescension.


You jumped in with a snide comment implying that centuries of oppression had somehow passed me by. It's clear to everyone that we don't need to spell out that the way non-white actors are treated is a microcosm of how non-white anybodys are treated.


----------



## Mation (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> As I'm sure you realise, it's a little more nuanced than that.  But I don't think that black characters can only be played by black actors.


Sure. In the logical world in which racism doesn't exist, you'd perhaps be right. Black actors would get a wide variety of roles with ease, including those playing white characters when they're better than the white actors auditioning.

Do we live in that world?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> You jumped in with a snide comment implying that centuries of oppression had somehow passed me by.


 No, that was your interpretation/assumption. There was nothing snide about what I asked you. I have since gone further and explained to you why I asked you that question. You don't get to decide how I meant what I posted, I am honest enough to tell you.



> It's clear to everyone that we don't need to spell out that the way non-white actors are treated is a microcosm of how non-white anybodys are treated.


 Quite clear to everyone? How can you speak for everyone?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> What if? I don't understand the point your trying to make.



There are a bunch of things going on here that need teasing apart.  There looks to be a good bit of racial essentialism from one side and a dose of Devil's Advocate from the other, and unless we start picking the knot apart we can talk past each other all day.

If you don't want to do that, the short answer to 'Why is 'browning up acceptable in Hollywood?' is 'money'.  Money trumps all other considerations until either so many people are speaking up to convince the money men the money is at risk or the box office takings make it obvious.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Quite clear to everyone? How can you speak for everyone?


Because almost 14 years on this board have led me to believe that the people here are not complete idiots.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> And what if the white person plays the black character _without _blacking up.


If the role can be played by a white actor without "blacking up" then it's not a black character. It's just a character. If the skin colour is important, then a black actor should play the role. If it isn't, then the best actor available should play it.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> If you don't want to do that, the short answer to 'Why is 'browning up acceptable in Hollywood?' is 'money'.  Money trumps all other considerations until either so many people are speaking up to convince the money men the money is at risk or the box office takings make it obvious.


I think that's mostly true, but not entirely - otherwise there would be a lot more white actors playing brown parts in present-day settings. Hollywood seems to have decided that it's okay for Christian Bale to be a 5th century BC Egyptian (or whatever that last film was about), but balks at casting (for example) a white guy as the comedy Indian on Big Bang Theory. Apu not withstanding.

I'd imagine there is probably an element of actor willingness playing a part too.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Everyone in the bible was white, you only have to look at the pictures




Dinosaur aside, this is what they're doing isn't it. Looking at some pictures from the film I don't think they 'browning up' in the sense of making up the actors to change their skin colour, they're 'whitening up' the characters. Which is slightly different but equally racist tbh - they're important religious figures so they must be white, what else would they be?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Apparently the sphinxes also got a 'European' makeover for the set of Exodus. I suppose we should applaud that attention to detail. Consistency being important in movies and all.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Apparently the sphinxes also got a 'European' makeover for the set of Exodus. I suppose we should applaud that attention to detail. Consistency being important in movies and all.



The picture of the Sphinx surprised me more than the actors; since despite a bit of erosion we know what it looks like.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Hollywood seems to have decided that it's okay for Christian Bale to be a 5th century BC Egyptian (or whatever that last film was about), but balks at casting (for example) a white guy as the comedy Indian on Big Bang Theory.



I'm not familiar with the story but did they originally want Raj played by a white actor or something?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The picture of the Sphinx surprised me more than the actors; since despite a bit of erosion we know what it looks like.



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Mation said:


> Sure. In the logical world in which racism doesn't exist, you'd perhaps be right. Black actors would get a wide variety of roles with ease, including those playing white characters when they're better than the white actors auditioning.
> 
> Do we live in that world?



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..


----------



## Iownadyson (Nov 2, 2014)

Racism is a bad thing in my opinion


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Apparently the sphinxes also got a 'European' makeover for the set of Exodus. I suppose we should applaud that attention to detail. Consistency being important in movies and all.


No it didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Iownadyson said:


> Racism is a bad thing in my opinion


Bye.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 2, 2014)

Although actually I think they have browned up the baddie. FFS.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not familiar with the story but did they originally want Raj played by a white actor or something?


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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The picture of the Sphinx surprised me more than the actors; since despite a bit of erosion we know what it looks like.


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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> If the role can be played by a white actor without "blacking up" then it's not a black character. It's just a character. If the skin colour is important, then a black actor should play the role. If it isn't, then the best actor available should play it.



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> What justification is there for having a white person black up to play a black character?



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.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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.


You're the one re-writing history by using social media bullshit in place of two sorts of facts - historical and contemporary.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.


----------



## Iownadyson (Nov 2, 2014)

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


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> 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.


Well, yeah - and I'm guilty of saying "Indian" when what I really mean is "brown-skinned", regardless of nationality. Mea culpa.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

Mation said:


> Sure. In the logical world in which racism doesn't exist, you'd perhaps be right. Black actors would get a wide variety of roles with ease, including those playing white characters when they're better than the white actors auditioning.
> 
> Do we live in that world?




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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't think there is racist bias in the casting of Hollywood movies?



I've not claimed that, have I?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Iownadyson said:


> 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


Oh great, ninjaboy.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> You're totally missing the point.



You've not really made a point.


----------



## Iownadyson (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh great, ninjaboy.



Why are you so angry?


----------



## Iownadyson (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Well, yeah - and I'm guilty of saying "Indian" when what I really mean is "brown-skinned", regardless of nationality. Mea culpa.



I didn't notice that in the thread (you said 'Indian character'), but I wasn't hypocrisy-hunting anyway.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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.



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


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



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> 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. 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.



I think Athos was more musing on the pure logic and accepts the ugly history.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He has answered now - and _support _was the wrong word to use there as well - but given OU swing from being against it full stop to thinking it's justified in some cases and C66's sarcastic response to it, i thought i better check.


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?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollywood is a context though so the debate was never about a hypothetical place that doesn't exist.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Speaking of brown: could an Iranian/Persian get the role of an Arab?



I'm guessing you don't know who Omid Djalili is.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> 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. 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.



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If a remake of Tootsie was planned [heaven forbid], would the legislation decree that a woman must be selected for Dustin Hoffman's role?


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.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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?:




			
				OU said:
			
		

> 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






			
				athos said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Black man' is not a specific role


Sometimes it is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> '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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> '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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Tropic Thunder?





Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


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


Great in that role. Not a convincing cockney though!


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> How much thought have you given this?



Are you for real?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


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



Yes; and how much importance should incidentals be given, when determining which actor should get which role?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's Ted Neely, btw.


The DVD commentary on that film is hilarious. Neeley is such an old hippy, it's just him remembering all the people he used to know and calling them "man", man...


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes; and how much importance should incidentals be given, when determining which actor should get which role?


Quite a lot, IMO. If a role is written for a short bald fat man, then actors fitting that description should have a better chance of landing it. If the role is Winston Churchill, then the actor who plays him should be somewhat close in appearance, notwithstanding makeup and suspension of disbelief.

That means that if a role is for a person of colour, then the actor playing the role should more than likely match that colour. Luckily though, most screenwriters now know better than to specify race/ethnicity in their scripts. Producers and casting agents, though, have different priorities, mostly revolving around money, but also sadly sometimes affected by a misguided belief that audiences want to see white heroes and non-white villains.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 2, 2014)

What about Chris Liley? He makes very funny programmes but a few of his characters are non-white stereotypes - Jonah and S.Mouse specifically. Is this acceptable?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2014)

D'wards said:


> What about Chris Liley? He makes very funny programmes but a few of his characters are non-white stereotypes - Jonah and S.Mouse specifically. Is this acceptable?



No, not at all - I stopped watching during angry boys because of this.  Tbf, he also 'browns up' for Jonah in Summer Heights High - which I ignorantly didn't realise was a race issue at the time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.



Ben Kingsley is half Indian.

e2a: A billion other people have already pointed this out


----------



## andysays (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.



So is this friend of yours actually Persian/Iranian, or does he just happen to have what you/he consider a more appropriate skintone than JG?

It seems there's some pretty dodgy reductionist/essentialist thinking going on on this thread, not just by you, but by many others.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Quite a lot, IMO. If a role is written for a short bald fat man, then actors fitting that description should have a better chance of landing it. If the role is Winston Churchill, then the actor who plays him should be somewhat close in appearance, notwithstanding makeup and suspension of disbelief.
> 
> That means that if a role is for a person of colour, then the actor playing the role should more than likely match that colour. Luckily though, most screenwriters now know better than to specify race/ethnicity in their scripts. Producers and casting agents, though, have different priorities, mostly revolving around money, but also sadly sometimes affected by a misguided belief that audiences want to see white heroes and non-white villains.



Which brings us back to the question: should these stereotypical, non-white villain roles be the roles reserved for black actors; or should we be taking to task the real injustice/inequity in the equation: the nature of the roles as written involving people of different ethnicities?


----------



## D'wards (Nov 2, 2014)

Has anyone mentioned that Ben Kingsley is half Indian yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

D'wards said:


> What about Chris Liley? He makes very funny programmes but a few of his characters are non-white stereotypes - Jonah and S.Mouse specifically. Is this acceptable?



That's not very funny. It's remarkably and painfully unfunny And it's him _playing _black. He could do that white and be just as unfunny and you know...wrong. A choice was made.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> 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.




I saw it done in the late 90s at the Derngate for school- the horrific DV was sidestepped by making it ding-for-dong tom n jerry slapstick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

D'wards said:


> What about Chris Liley? He makes very funny programmes but a few of his characters are non-white stereotypes - Jonah and S.Mouse specifically. Is this acceptable?



Shit, unfunny, racist and offensive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Omar Sharif has played Russian, Spanish, French, Indian and Mongolian characters as well as Arabs. Has any other actor covered so many different races I wonder?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Omar Sharif has played Russian, Spanish, French, Indian and Mongolian characters as well as Arabs. Has any other actor covered so many different races I wonder?



Art Malik has done few too, maybe not as many as that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> So is this friend of yours actually Persian/Iranian, or does he just happen to have what you/he consider a more appropriate skintone than JG?


He is half Pakistani and he is always being cast as a terrorist. He has even Anglicised his name to get more work.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Omar Sharif has played Russian, Spanish, French, Indian and Mongolian characters as well as Arabs. Has any other actor covered so many different races I wonder?


"Races".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Omar Sharif has played Russian, Spanish, French, Indian and Mongolian characters as well as Arabs. Has any other actor covered so many different _races_ I wonder?



Do you mean nationalities?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> "Races".



Not a word I usually use if I can avoid it. Fair call out.


----------



## andysays (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> He is half Pakistani and he is always being cast as a terrorist. He has even Anglicised his name to get more work.



So if he's "half Pakistani", why should he think he has any more of an ethnic-authenticity right to the role of a Persian than JG?

Or are you/he suggesting that all "brown" people are somehow the same? TBC, I don't think that's what you're *meaning* to say, but that's how it's in danger of coming across.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Omar Sharif has played Russian, Spanish, French, Indian and Mongolian characters as well as Arabs. Has any other actor covered so many different races I wonder?



Yul Brynner: King of Siam; Ramses in The Ten Commandments; a Russian in a number of films; King Solomon; a Native American in Kings of the Sun; a robot in Westworld; an American in Magnificent Seven; a half-Japanese person in Flight from Ashiya; a German in Triple Cross; he tried out for Spartacus, but didn't make it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays  Aren't we talking about phenotypes and being consistent with the ethnic backround of the character being portrayed?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> Or are you/he suggesting that all "brown" people are somehow the same? TBC, I don't think that's what you're *meaning* to say, but that's how it's in danger of coming across.


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.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Yul Brynner is an interesting case, actually. He was apparently half Swiss, half Tatar.

Going by all these new film rules - he wouldn't be able to get a role to play anybody!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Aren't we talking about phenotypes?



I've not heard that word in this context before. Phenotype to me means the biolgical expression of genetic characteristics. 

There is a difference between one actor playing Asian, European and Middle Eastern roles and, for example, playing a white Norwegian, A white German and a white Russian. A white Russian person that is, not one of those horrid milky vodka things I used to drink far too many of.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yul Brynner: King of Siam; Ramses in The Ten Commandments; a Russian in a number of films; King Solomon; a Native American in Kings of the Sun; a robot in Westworld; an American in Magnificent Seven; a half-Japanese person in Flight from Ashiya; a German in Triple Cross; he tried out for Spartacus, but didn't make it.



I'm not expert on the finer points of these matters, but I don't think robots are a recognised ethnic group.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yul Brynner is an interesting case, actually. He was apparently half Swiss, half Tatar.
> 
> Going by all these new film rules - he wouldn't be able to get a role to play anybody!


Don't be daft - most roles are open. You think that most roles are closed.  How then did YB get roles?

And if the wider agument is that characters should be played by people of cultural similarity (and then automatically have some cultural respect or other stuff)  then why on earth should a pakistani muslim be be fitted for a role of a hebrew? Even in terms of looks (or phenotype)  it's 50/50 between a typically pakistani male and that welsh bloke.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not expert on the finer points of these matters, but I don't think robots are a recognised ethnic group.



Organic privilege writ large on U75.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've not heard that word in this context before. Phenotype to me means the biolgical expression of genetic characteristics.


 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.


----------



## andysays (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> andysays  Aren't we talking about phenotypes and being consistent with the ethnic backround of the character being portrayed?



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.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't be daft - most roles are open. You think that most roles are closed.  How then did YB get roles?



The comment was made tongue in cheek. And given that Brynner was a popular actor with a large following, likely roles were written with him in mind, in order to cash in on his star power.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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


----------



## andysays (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

poptyping said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> . 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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


Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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 (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

slow news day?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> See the part highlighted?
> 
> Both.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2014)

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


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> Sure why not have a white Egyption, a black Roman.



Neither of those would necessarily be unhistorical, if you were portraying say Cleopatra or Septimus Severus.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Neither of those would necessarily be unhistorical, if you were portraying say Cleopatra or Septimus Severus.


What was Cleopatra's skin color?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What was Cleopatra's skin color?



What's the skin colour of most Caucasians?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What was Cleopatra's skin color?


Being italian/macedonian, do you think she was nubian?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

WTF is a phenotype?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> WTF is a phenotype?


What you look like. People use it bamboozle others in debate. To scientise their posts.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Being italian/macedonian, do you think she was nubian?


As Rutita has pointed out, a broad range of phenotypes is possible within different nationalities [and that's what 'Italian' 'Macedonian' and 'Nubian' are, although 'Nubian' is best described as a tribe]. It isn't either/or..... white/black.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

I think I said that back on the first page.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

... or to descientize the post: it's possible for people of the same nationality to look quite different from one another, and to have varying gradations of skin color.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ... or to descientize the post: it's possible for people of the same nationality to look quite different from one another, and to have varying gradations of skin color.


Yeah, but not cleo-fucking-patra.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> As Rutita has pointed out, a broad range of phenotypes is possible within different nationalities [and that's what 'Italian' 'Macedonian' and 'Nubian' are, although 'Nubian' is best described as a tribe]. It isn't either/or..... white/black.


You reckon, given the nubian history, there might be a single word of comment on her not looking like the white ruling class did - anywhere? At home? Abroad? From her schooldays? Nope, not a word.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 2, 2014)

The best onscreen cleopatra was Amanda Barrie


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> WTF is a phenotype?



I explained what I meant a few pages back. I quote this now so that the pompous rewriting of the history of the thread and how the term has been used and explained falls flat on it's arse.  


Rutita1 said:


> 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.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What you look like. People use it bamboozle others in debate. To scientise their posts.



Useful enough in that it separates the visual signifiers of race from the cultural elements.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You reckon, given the nubian history, there might be a single word of comment on her not looking like the white ruling class did - anywhere? At home? Abroad? From her schooldays? Nope, not a word.



The Ptolemys were Greek. Once again, a broad range in skin tone gradation - as with most nationalities. There is no 'black skin/white skin' borderline drawn somewhere in the Mediterranean.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Ptolemys were Greek. Once again, a broad range in skin tone gradation - as with most nationalities. There is no 'black skin/white skin' borderline drawn somewhere in the Mediterranean.


As i said, they were macedonians (whether you count that as greek is irrelevant) -  and no, a pretty strict skin tone gradation, as befits a ruling elite and as recognised at the time. There are quite clear lines drawn about historical evidence and logical inference though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I explained what I meant a few pages back. I quote this now so that the pompous rewriting of the history of the thread and how the term has been used and explained falls flat on it's arse.



You're bamboozling everyone damn you. A debate is no place for facts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2014)

I will admit to being slightly bamboozled by the invention of the word 'scientise' though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> 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.


I don't think that's too much to ask for. I was watching the first Harry Potter film and the noticed the Weasley twins were non-gingers in wigs or with dye jobs. That also pissed me off.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> What's the skin colour of most Caucasians?



What is a 'Caucasian', and do they all have the same skin color?

Walking down the street, seems like almost everyone is just a little bit different from each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is a 'Caucasian', and do they all have the same skin color?
> 
> Walking down the street, seems like almost everyone is just a little bit different from each other.



Therefore historical evidence and the rule of logical inference DO NOT EXIST.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

I looked up 'Caucasian':

*Caucasian*

of or relating to one of the traditional divisions of humankind, covering a broad group of peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa.

Europe, western Asia, parts of India and North Africa..... all with the same skin color?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is a 'Caucasian', and do they all have the same skin color?
> 
> Walking down the street, seems like almost everyone is just a little bit different from each other.



Like I said, already asked this question back on page one.

Good to see you back Johnny but do try and read the threads before wading in this time.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is a 'Caucasian', and do they all have the same skin color?
> 
> Walking down the street, seems like almost everyone is just a little bit different from each other.


In fact, the past didn't happen either. Because some people look the same. Nothing happened. No one did anything either. Certainly not people who looked different.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Like I said, already asked this question back on page one.
> 
> Good to see you back Johnny but do try and read the threads before wading in this time.



I did read the thread; but I missed any reference to Cleopatra's skin color back on page one.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Whilst my johnny gently googles. And googles and googles.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I did read the thread; but I missed any reference to Cleopatra's skin color back on page one.


Oh god.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Whilst my johnny gently googles. And googles and googles.



It's a little bit heartwarming - well, at least it's familiar  - to see that I have the same effect on you as always. Like grass pollen to an allergic person - from normal; to sneezing, sputtering and drooling, all in a matter of minutes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's a little bit heartwarming - well, at least it's familiar  - to see that I have the same effect on you as always. Like grass pollen to an allergic person - from normal; to sneezing, sputtering and drooling, all in a matter of minutes.


Frauds/dissemblers/liars/twisters/bullshitters - all get the same consistent reaction from me. Good company you're keeping.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

To sum up my position, apart from the semantic wrangling: I think it's a safe bet to say that many people of colour would prefer a society where typical societal decisions were made without reference to skin color as a factor with any weight, other things being equal. Decisions like, rental or sale of property, use of public transportation, job hiring and advancement, amongst others.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm not sure how that relates to the OP, Johnny. And the semantic wrangling was also irrelevant


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure how that relates to the OP, Johnny. And the semantic wrangling was also irrelevant



Because the fuss being raised - apparent in this thread - about actors of one race portraying characters of another, even when the purpose for doing so isn't to somehow degrade or demean the race of the character - shows how far we must go before achieving a society where skin color truly doesn't matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

_And here's bono with the sports_...


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Because the fuss being raised - apparent in this thread - about actors of one race portraying characters of another, even when the purpose for doing so isn't to somehow degrade or demean the race of the character - shows how far we must go before achieving a society where skin color truly doesn't matter.


By "blacking up", yes you are demeaning the race of the character.

You're saying it's vital to have an actor who looks a certain way, but you can't find anyone good enough who looks that way naturally.


----------



## JTG (Nov 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Has anyone mentioned that Ben Kingsley is half Indian yet?


Hardly a suitable choice to play the French Jean-Luc Picard


----------



## FNG (Nov 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So many films, including Ridley Scott's newest Biblical epic, Exodus: Gods And Kings feature heavily made up white actors playing brown characters.
> Why is this acceptable? I would have thought it was frowned upon nowadays.





Rutita1 said:


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



This has probably already been answered,and i am sure you are aware that it has its roots in segregated movie theatres, its why a whole generation of talented black actors, were limited to being cast in low budget blaxploitation movies or roles that were considered non threatening to the status quo.That informal segregated casting policies outlasted official state legislated segregation is an indicator of the conservative nature of hollywood

I dont think its a coincidence that this movie which i would expect to make most of its boxoffice in the Bible belt of middle america has reverted to type.


----------



## FNG (Nov 3, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To sum up my position, apart from the semantic wrangling: I think it's a safe bet to say that many people of colour would prefer a society where typical societal decisions were made without reference to skin color as a factor with any weight, other things being equal. Decisions like, rental or sale of property, use of public transportation, *job hiring* and advancement, amongst others.



Might see the flaw in that arguement JC


----------



## Athos (Nov 3, 2014)

poptyping said:


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



Then you don't seem to have thought through the consequences of your position.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Then you don't seem to have thought through the consequences of your position.



I'm not going to talk to you about this anymore.


----------



## Athos (Nov 3, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I'm not going to talk to you about this anymore.



Thanks.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 3, 2014)

Lucky this sort of thing would never happen in wonderful, cosmopolitan Brixton isn't it?

http://nishaexplainsitall.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/blackface-rears-its-ugly-head-in-brixton/


----------



## ddraig (Nov 3, 2014)

fuck sake!   wtf?


----------



## tendril (Nov 3, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If a remake of Tootsie was planned [heaven forbid], would the legislation decree that a woman must be selected for Dustin Hoffman's role?



tbf, Tootsie _was about_ a man playing a woman's roll.....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lucky this sort of thing would never happen in wonderful, cosmopolitan Brixton isn't it?
> 
> http://nishaexplainsitall.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/blackface-rears-its-ugly-head-in-brixton/


Why doesn't that surprise me?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

Athos said:


> Then you don't seem to have thought through the consequences of your position.



Do you realise how patronising that sounds coming from a white person to a POC who has stated that they're offended by it? 

"You shouldn't be offended, you just haven't thought this through properly!"


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you realise how patronising that sounds coming from a white person to a POC who has stated that they're offended by it?
> 
> "You shouldn't be offended, you just haven't thought this through properly!"



Except the 'quote' isn't actually a quote.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

The latter part is, the former is a summary of what you appear to be saying.


----------



## FNG (Nov 5, 2014)

its bullshit the film casts POC as thieves murderers and royal butlers whilst reinforcing the centuries old concept of white divinity,yet people who point that out are the racist ones?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

That's not a knife, _ this _is a knife.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2014)

JTG said:


> Hardly a suitable choice to play the French Jean-Luc Picard



It's the future. The French are extinct by them, haing all succumbed to a batch of infected snail shit sorbet.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That's not a knife, _ this _is a knife.


Just in case I'm the only one who remembers shit movies from the 80s, the reference is when a (black) mugger pulls a knife and is sent fleeing for his life when the gallant and chivalrous (white) Mick 'Crocodile' Dundee pulls out a much larger hunting knife and utters the above quote.

It's funny how white actors aren't being asked to black up to pose as bit-part black villains. Its the major roles where it's suddenly a struggle to find a suitable candidate.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 5, 2014)

The film's made for white people, all the Middle Eastern looking actors are bad guys and the black ones comedy an or action. White people need the chameleon like talent of a Zellweger, the stature of a Cruise. People of colour cannot convey this depth.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Just in case I'm the only one who remembers shit movies from the 80s, the reference is when a (black) mugger pulls a knife and is sent fleeing for his life when the gallant and chivalrous (white) Mick 'Crocodile' Dundee pulls out a much larger hunting knife and utters the above quote.


Crocodile Dundee is not shit


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

crocodile dundee 2&3 however, are shit.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The latter part is, the former is a summary of what you appear to be saying.



What you'd like me to be saying, for you to justify what is otherwise a strawman attack.

And, in any event, your point was ludicrous; effectively suggesting I should defer to Poptyping's opinion because (s)he happens to be a POC (of which I wasn't aware).  As if black people aren't capable of woolly thinking.

Dangerous identity politics bullshit.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> crocodile dundee 2&3 however, are shit.


Holy crap, there's a 3?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> What you'd like me to be saying, for you to justify what is otherwise a strawman attack.
> 
> And, in any event, your point was ludicrous; effectively suggesting I should defer to Poptyping's opinion because (s)he happens to be a POC (of which I wasn't aware).  As if black people aren't capable of woolly thinking.
> 
> Dangerous identity politics bullshit.



How is a POC finding blacking up in Hollywood offensive 'woolly thinking' or 'dangerous identity politics bullshit'?

We're talking about a specific context here so no need to widen it to draw in identity politics. It's you telling a POC that they are wrong regarding their feelings surrounding what they perceive to be racism. Which is an astonishing position to adopt.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> How is a POC finding blacking up in Hollywood offensive 'woolly thinking' or 'dangerous identity politics bullshit'?
> 
> We're talking about a specific context here so no need to widen it draw in identity politics. It's you telling a POC that they are wrong regarding racism. Which is an astonishing position to adopt.



I've already set out the basis of my disagreement with poptyping at length.

There's nothing astonishing about the fact that I don't feel obliged to defer to somebody else's opinion simply by virtue of an aspect of their identity (as opposed to the content of their ideas).  The fact that you think I should is what's astonishing!  And dangerous.  It's typical of the identity politics bullshit that doing immeasurable harm to the left in this country.

A case in point is your focus on why my race disqualifies me from disagreeing, whilst missing the bigger issue of the way in which racist recruitment in Hollywood is largely a product of capitalism.  Racism which, if you read and understand my posts, you'll see I've not denied.  You'll find that my comments were about 'in principle' arguments, and were set in a hypothetical context where casting decisions were not made on a racist basis (explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 5, 2014)

> How is a POC finding blacking up in Hollywood offensive 'woolly thinking' or 'dangerous identity politics bullshit'?



Don't think he said that; but instead said that people of any skin color are capable of being in error, or misguided.



> We're talking about a specific context here so no need to widen it to draw in identity politics. It's you telling a POC that they are wrong regarding their feelings surrounding what they perceive to be racism. Which is an astonishing position to adopt



You've introduced 'feelings', when what's being discussed is opinions, or ideas. Of course feelings are personal, and not right or wrong. Ideas or opinions are, or at least should be, open to debate, regardless of what color the holder might be.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King had markedly different views on some race issues.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> I've already set out the basis of my disagreement with poptyping at length.
> 
> There's nothing astonishing about the fact that I don't feel obliged to defer to somebody else's opinion simply by virtue of an aspect of their identity (as opposed to the content of their ideas).  The fact that you think I should is what's astonishing!  And dangerous.  It's typical of the identity politics bullshit that doing immeasurable harm to the left in this country.
> 
> A case in point is your focus on why my race disqualifies me from disagreeing, whilst missing the bigger issue of the way in which racist recruitment in Hollywood is largely a product of capitalism.  Racism which, if you read and understand my posts, you'll see I've not denied.  You'll find that my comments were about 'in principle' arguments, and were set in a hypothetical context where casting decisions were not made on a racist basis (explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious).



Now who has the straw man? I didn't suggest that you should defer to poptyping's opinion on the basis of them being a POC (I accept you didn't know this and I only suspect it because I think I know who it is) I said it was patronising for you to suggest they hadn't thought it through, an argument that you're still adamant to continue with despite now knowing that they are a POC (poptyping hasn't corrected me otherwise). 

It's like a woman complaining about sexism and all the men in the room telling her why she's wrong. Is that identity politics? I thought identity politics was organising around your identity regardless of whether you shared social or class interests with your comrades. I do think there's a place for identity politics *within* class politics where class politics (which lets face it, can be very white hetero male at times) fails to deal effectively with specific forms of bigotry.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's you telling a POC that they are wrong regarding their feelings surrounding what they perceive to be racism. Which is an astonishing position to adopt.



As you're aware, I'm a 'POC': have you, and do you, defer to anything and everything I have to say about race issues?


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Now who has the straw man? I didn't suggest that you should defer to poptyping's opinion on the basis of them being a POC (I accept you didn't know this and I only suspect it because I think I know who it is) I said it was patronising for you to suggest they hadn't thought it through, an argument that you're still adamant to continue with despite now knowing that they are a POC (poptyping hasn't corrected me otherwise).



I understand you think it's patronising; I disagree.




Citizen66 said:


> It's like a woman complaining about sexism and all the men in the room telling her why she's wrong.



Well it depends what the woman is saying, doesn't it?  She may be right, or she may be wrong.




Citizen66 said:


> Is that identity politics?  I thought identity politics was organising around your identity regardless of whether you shared social or class interests with your comrades.  I do think there's a place for identity politics *within* class politics where class politics (which lets face it, can be very white hetero male at times) fails to deal effectively with specific forms of bigotry.



One worrying aspect of the growth of identity politics (imported from the US) is the increasingly common theme of identity being used as a trump card to stifle debate (as well as becoming the focus of a lot of the left's activity, to the detriment of the struggle against capitalism).


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> As you're aware, I'm a 'POC': have you, and do you, defer to anything and everything I have to say about race issues?



I wouldn't think I knew more about racism than you did. How could I? It's something I've never really experienced (apart from the wankers in Barcelona but that's only really because my mate pointed it out, I wouldn't have thought there was a racial context to it otherwise).


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> I understand you think it's patronising; I disagree.



Only because you haven't thought it through.




> Well it depends what the woman is saying, doesn't it?  She may be right, or she may be wrong.



Of course. I may say the sky is blue and she may cry sexism. I'd argue she is wrong. I could call her a slag and she'd cry sexism and I might argue that she's wrong there too. But the weight of history of 'slag' being offensive would be against me I expect, much like blacking up being considered universally offensive; in the UK if not in other European countries.




> One worrying aspect of the growth of identity politics (imported from the US) is the increasingly common theme of identity being used as a trump card to stifle debate (as well as becoming the focus of a lot of the left's activity, to the detriment of the struggle against capitalism).



I'd agree that identity politics is generally shit for the left. I don't think someone finding 'blacking up' offensive are doing it just to stifle the debate though.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course. I may say the sky is blue and she may cry sexism. I'd argue she is wrong. I could call her a slag and she'd cry sexism and I might argue that she's wrong there too. But the weight of history of 'slag' being offensive would be against me I expect, much like blacking up being considered universally offensive; in the UK if not in other European countries.



So you agree that she might be right, or she might be wrong.  Which fatally undermines the point you were trying to make by likening this hypothetical scenario to me disagreeing with poptyping!




Citizen66 said:


> I'd agree that identity politics is generally shit for the left. I don't think someone finding 'blacking up' offensive are doing it just to stifle the debate though.



I didn't say (s)he was trying to stifle debate; I said that you were wrong to imply that I ought not to argue with poptyping about this issue because (s)he is a POC.


I think this has gone as far as it can, now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I wouldn't think I knew more about racism than you did. How could I?



I think there can be many ways that a 'non-POC' could have a heightened awareness of racism: living in a racially diverse neighborhood, for instance. Marriage to a POC. Longterm friends who are POC. etc.

It might even be possible that a non-POC in such a circumstance could have a greater understanding of racism, than would a wealthy African from Nigeria etc. who'd spent little time outside of their country of origin.

Of course I understand your point; I just don't think it's always right to dismiss the ideas of someone based on what they are, as opposed to considering who they are [ie their personal experience etc]


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> So you agree that she might be right, or she might be wrong.  Which fatally undermines the point you were trying to make by likening this hypothetical scenario to me disagreeing with poptyping!



Did you read my post in its entirety or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
The specifics were you saying a POC was incorrect regarding their views of blacking up in Hollywood because they 'hadn't thought it through'. I didn't say you couldn't disagree with their position. I said (originally) that it was a patronising thing to say and (in my last post) that the weight of history of blacking up was on poptyping's side anyway.

How the fuck is that undermining my own argument?

Besides that, I think the discussion is pretty much exhausted also.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think there can be many ways that a 'non-POC' could have a heightened awareness of racism: living in a racially diverse neighborhood, for instance. Marriage to a POC. Longterm friends who are POC. etc.
> 
> It might even be possible that a non-POC in such a circumstance could have a greater understanding of racism, than would a wealthy African from Nigeria etc. who'd spent little time outside of their country of origin.
> 
> Of course I understand your point; I just don't think it's always right to dismiss the ideas of someone based on what they are, as opposed to considering who they are [ie their personal experience etc]



Which is exactly what Athos was doing when he told poptyping that they 'hadn't thought it through'. I pointed out that it was an incredibly patronising thing to say. Perhaps I should have left out the fact poptyping is a POC as that's what seems to have led to this extended toing and froing about a POC's view carrying more weight than a non-POC regarding racism.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Which is exactly what Athos was doing when he told poptyping that they 'hadn't thought it through'. I pointed out that it was an incredibly patronising thing to say. Perhaps I should have left out the fact poptyping is a POC as that's what seems to have led to this extended toing and froing about a POC's view carrying more weight than a non-POC regarding racism.



I didn't dismiss the opinion at all; I disagreed with it.  And I didn't do that becasue of who or what poptyping is, but because it doesn't stack up.

And you couldn't have left out the racial element, because our respective races was absolutely central to the point you were obviously trying to make when you said:



Citizen66 said:


> Do you realise how patronising that sounds coming from a white person to a POC who has stated that they're offended by it?
> 
> "You shouldn't be offended, you just haven't thought this through properly!"



But, even shorn of the racial element, the suggestion that it's patronising doesn't make sense.  As you'll see from the context of the exchange (the most significant parts of which are reproduced below), my comment about poptyping's position not being properly thought through was not only in response to him/her questioning whether I had thought about it, but also it was quite specific.  It was in response to poptyping's post which denied the inescapable consequences of his/her line of thinking (which consequences I had set out in my previous post).  And I stand by that: it is an absurd position that asserts it's never acceptable for a white actor to play a black character, even when the decision to cast that white actor is free from any hint of racism (i.e. the hypothetical precondition I had set out more than once).  To continue to assert that it's never ok, whilst not recognising the absurdity to which that line of thinking leads, does indicate a poorly thought-through position.




poptyping said:


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





Athos said:


> 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.





poptyping said:


> What justification is there for having a white person black up to play a black character?





Athos said:


> 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.





poptyping said:


> ... 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.





Athos said:


> I've listened and thought.   I just disagree.
> 
> How much thought have you given this?





poptyping said:


> Are you for real?





Athos said:


> 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.





poptyping said:


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





Athos said:


> Then you don't seem to have thought through the consequences of your position.


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2014)

If things were different, then it might be acceptable to do different things.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos Oi cockend you missed this bit out.



poptyping said:


> 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.



Anyway stop quoting me. I said I'm not going to talk about this with you anymore.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Fair enough. I think (as 8ball suggested earlier) its a case of people talking past each other. You're nesting your argument in a white actor playing a black character not being necessarily offensive in certain contexts. I think others (myself included) are basing their posts on the context of the op (and blacking up in general in the context of societies not free from racism).


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Athos Oi cockend you missed this bit out.



Yes, and my response to it.  Becasue it wasn't central to the specific point.  In any event, I made clear that I was quoting selectively.




poptyping said:


> Anyway stop quoting me.



I'll quote what I like.




poptyping said:


> I said I'm not going to talk about this with you anymore.



Fuck off then.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fair enough. I think (as 8ball suggested earlier) its a case of people talking past each other. You're nesting your argument in a white actor playing a black character not being necessarily offensive in certain contexts. I think others (myself included) are basing their posts on the context of the op (and blacking up in general in the context of societies not free from racism).



Yes.  I've acknowledged the current reality of a racist Hollywood, but have been at pains to point out that my argument is that, in principle, the idea of a white actor playing a black character is not inevitably offensive.  Do you at least agree with that proposition?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Santino said:


> If things were different, then it might be acceptable to do different things.


Exactly. It's a bit bizarre to be having whimsical flights of fancy when the topic is set in a pretty specific context. Athos did well though: if you want me to back off just hit me with a mountain of text.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yes.  I've acknowledged the current reality of a racist Hollywood, but have been at pains to point out that my argument is that, in principle, the idea of a white actor playing a black character is not inevitably offensive.  Do you at least agree with that proposition?


Yes of course. If we could erase history I'm sure my views on many things would be different.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes of course. If we could erase history I'm sure my views on many things would be different.



Then you now agree with me, and we both disagree with poptyping , when he/she said:

Are you for real? Blacking up or browning up whatever is not ok *under any circumstance*. [my emphasis]


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Then you now agree with me, and we both disagree with poptyping , when he/she said:
> 
> Are you for real? Blacking up or browning up whatever is not ok *under any circumstance*. [my emphasis]


"erasing history" goes a bit beyond the normal meaning of "under any circumstance" though. Quite a bit, in fact.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> "erasing history" goes a bit beyond the normal meaning of "under any circumstance" though. Quite a bit, in fact.



The idea that, in the future, casting decisions could be free of racism does not require history to be erased.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Then you now agree with me, and we both disagree with poptyping , when he/she said:
> 
> Are you for real? Blacking up or browning up whatever is not ok *under any circumstance*. [my emphasis]


Oh come on. Shagging kids could be acceptable in certain circumstances. Beating your girlfriend could. We might breathe in carbon dioxide and drink sulphuric acid in certain circumstances and it be normal. We might have seven mouths and double decker buses for feet.

What is this shit?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

personally I've stated before that if it takes you longer to explain why you are in blackface than it takes to get punched on the nose then you shouldn't do it.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh come on. Shagging kids could be acceptable in certain circumstances. Beating your girlfriend could. We might breathe in carbon dioxide and drink sulphuric acid in certain circumstances and it be normal. We might have seven mouths and double decker buses for feet.
> 
> What is this shit?



So, are you flip-flopping again?  Do you agree with me, or not?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> The idea that, in the future, casting decisions could be free of racism does not require history to be erased.


But the history and connotations of blacking up will still exist, even if the conditions that created them do not. You cannot erase that, no matter how meritocratic your acting universe.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos 

You fucking off you cunt. Stop quoting and tagging me. I've told you I'm not discussing this anymore. Leave me out of it.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 5, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Oi cockend


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Athos
> 
> You fucking off you cunt. Stop quoting and tagging me. I've told you I'm not discussing this anymore. Leave me out of it.



Put me on ignore if it bothers you that much.  Prick.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> But the history and connotations of blacking up will still exist, even if the conditions that created them do not. You cannot erase that, no matter how meritocratic your acting universe.



As I've said, the point I was making doesn't require history to be erased.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Put me on ignore if it bothers you that much.  Prick.



Cock off, twat.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> We might have seven mouths and double decker buses for feet.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Cock off, twat.



Great comeback.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> So, are you flip-flopping again?  Do you agree with me, or not?


Yes I agree that blacking up wouldn't be offensive if we lived in happy clappy land. 

But in the context of this thread I think it is.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Holy crap, there's a 3?



That was exactly my thought.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> As I've said, the point I was making doesn't require history to be erased.


I know, and nor does mine require you to concede that point.

Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character _has_ to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes I agree that blacking up wouldn't be offensive if we lived in happy clappy land.
> 
> But in the context of this thread I think it is.



In the context of contemporary Hollywood, I would agree with you.  And have throughout.

What I disagreed with was poptyping's absolutist position that it could never be acceptable, even when the decision to cast a white actor in a black role wasn't racist.  A position you now seem to agree with.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I know, and nor does mine require you to concede that point.
> 
> Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character _has_ to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.



Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role.  That's been my position from the outset.  And that's what poptyping was denying.  Do you?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Let's flip this question around: can you really conceive of an acting role where the skin of the character _has_ to be non-white, yet there is not an actor with the 'correct' skin tone to play the part well enough? This acting role takes place in your racism-free universe, btw.



In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

8ball said:


> That was exactly my thought.




one of those VHS 'classics' of my youth. The local indy video shop was closing down and had tapes of execrable quality films for 50p a pop. Sometimes billed as 'crocodile dundee in LA'

Of course Mick was never a racist, as the second and first films pointed out heavily he was tight with the abororiginal aussies.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Of course Mick was never a racist, as the second and first films pointed out heavily he was tight with the abororiginal aussies.



I didn't realise he was a racist these days.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

8ball said:


> In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?


If the skin colour wasn't important, why bother doing blackface? It's just a character then, not a black character.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role.  That's been my position from the outset.  And that's what poptyping was denying.  Do you?


I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.

Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

8ball said:


> In this racism-free universe, why does the character *have* to be non-white?


some narratives become confusing, if not meaningless if "colourblind casting" is employed.  Stories about, say, how much biologically related people look like each other would be one example.

Clearly in our own universe, even in the utopian future being hypothesised, people may want to tell stories about the racist past.


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2014)

The majority of films and TV embrace a degree of verisimilitude with regard to casting, hence typically not casting women as men, 60-year olds as children or people as cats (except in specific, usually comedic, contexts). 

There is no general expectation that actors are cast without any reference to their appearance.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.
> 
> Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?


well - in both cases, you might cast against the biology of the character because in this production you wanted to make a point. It happens relatively frequently in theatre.  Gender-swapped productions of 'Hamlet', and an all-black production of 'Sus' ( a three-person play where two characters are racist coppers) leap to mind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.
> 
> Would you use a woman for a man's part because she was better able to portray the totality of the part?



That's an implicitly racist line of thinking.  It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity.  Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera.  Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> In the context of contemporary Hollywood, I would agree with you.  And have throughout.
> 
> What I disagreed with was poptyping's absolutist position that it could never be acceptable, even when the decision to cast a white actor in a black role wasn't racist.  A position you now seem to agree with.



Do we really need to put footnotes at the bottom of our posts to head off philosophical arguments at the pass on a thread that is context driven?

When poptyping said 'under any circumstance' I really don't think they expected us to be discussing life on the moons of Jupiter.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do we really need to put footnotes at the bottom of our posts to head off philosophical arguments at the pass on a thread that is context driven?
> 
> When poptyping said 'under any circumstance' I really don't think they expected us to be discussing life on the moons of Jupiter.



I made the hypothetical basis of my point clear; he/she continued to argue against it.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> well - in both cases, you might cast against the biology of the character because in this production you wanted to make a point. It happens relatively frequently in theatre.  Gender-swapped productions of 'Hamlet', and an all-black production of 'Sus' ( a three-person play where two characters are racist coppers) leap to mind.


The gender swapping is different as it's equal. We're talking about white people pretending to be black, which doesn't happen the other way around. You don't get black actors putting on whitening cream to play the parts of European Kings, for example. David Oyelowo didn't white-up when he played Henry.

The play about racist coppers is also different as it's there to make a point about racism, not re-enforce it.


Athos said:


> That's an implicitly racist line of thinking.  It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity.  Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera.  Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?


I'm the racist now?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

Santino said:


> The majority of films and TV embrace a degree of verisimilitude with regard to casting, hence typically not casting women as men, 60-year olds as children or people as cats (except in specific, usually comedic, contexts).
> 
> There is no general expectation that actors are cast without any reference to their appearance.


Indeed - acting is specifically exempt from many employment discrimination laws.


The acting world is lousy with talented people of every conceivable appearance.  In modern times too, it's a global employment market.  Unless you are an amateur group with a small pool of actors etc, the argument of 'best person for the job' simply does not wash.  The possible exception is that a film (or increasingly a flagship tv show) that can only attract funding if that specific part is a 'name' actor, and no name actors of that colour are willing.  But then the other argument should step in: "tough, don't do it. Make another film/show/play, or wait until you have better funding and can cast a lesser 'name'."

And if you are a small amateur group - then do another fucking play. Your hobby is not justification for the offence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

of course in Shakespeare time you had men playing womens roles on stage because of how actoring was already seen as a shoddy way to make ones p's and the social constraints on women at the time.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> The gender swapping is different as it's equal. We're talking about white people pretending to be black, which doesn't happen the other way around. You don't get black actors putting on whitening cream to play the parts of European Kings, for example. David Oyelowo didn't white-up when he played Henry.
> 
> The play about racist coppers is also different as it's there to make a point about racism, not re-enforce it.


Sorry - yeah, I know you know all that. I just wanted to get in there and sew up the potential loophole before some twattock leapt in and said "what about the all-female version of [xyz] I saw?"


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> Whilst unlikely, it's not a logical impossibility that there could be a situation in which a particular, especially talented white actor is more able to portray a black character than any of the black applicants for the role.  That's been my position from the outset.  And that's what poptyping was denying.  Do you?



Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> of course in Shakespeare time you had men playing womens roles on stage because of how actoring was already seen as a shoddy way to make ones p's and the social constraints on women at the time.


And anyway, acting itself was an entirely different concept, really, prior to stanislavski.  Audiences and writers alike were in no way aiming for verisimilitude. Not even close.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I'm the racist now?



No, I'm not saying you're racist; I'm saying that line of thinking is dodgy.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I'm the racist now?



I got the accusation early in the thread. Hence me busting the fucker's balls relentlessly from there on in.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


>



It was in a hypothetical context.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It was in a hypothetical context.



Like you "busting my balls".


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> Clearly in our own universe, even in the utopian future being hypothesised, people may want to tell stories about the racist past.



And what better way to do that than by blacking up...


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Especially if the role involved a really good black swimmer.



The swimming thing is really weird.

A mate of mine from work is an official at the big swimming tournaments and is quite insistent that if you're black the extra bone density makes it harder to swim, though this can be corrected with a slight difference in 'gait'.

I've looked it up and the difference doesn't look likely to lead to any real effect - is it true that this goes back to swimming pool policies in the States?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 5, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's an implicitly racist line of thinking.  It relies on skin colour as the be-all-and-end-all of a person's humanity.  Suppose the character was a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, black, Spanish man with a love of opera.  Would he be better portrayed by a working-class, poor, gay, disabled, white, Spanish man with a love of opera, or by any other actor who happened to be black?


You're having to come up with rather extreme examples to make your point, though. 

I don't think any actor should need to be from a particular background to play a part. That's where the 'acting' bit comes in. But Spanglechick is completely right that this is nothing whatever to do with a lack of suitably talented black actors - there are far more talented actors around than there are parts, for people of whatever colour. In an ideal world, this wouldn't matter. We don't live in that world, though, so it does matter, and the forces in operation that bring it about are to be resisted. 

For me, this is a smaller issue than another one wrt parts for black actors. Being black is still a 'thing'. In the US, UK and elsewhere, being white is a default, 'neutral' position. This is changing very very slowly, but I still see an imbalance here - I still see very few non-white actors playing parts where the race of the character is not important. I think this has possibly changed more on TV (here in Britain, at least) than in the cinema. But I suspect that it is still a far greater impediment to black actors getting decent roles (or even auditions for decent roles) than the occasional white actor browning up.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're having to come up with rather extreme examples to make your point, though.
> 
> I don't think any actor should need to be from a particular background to play a part. That's where the 'acting' bit comes in. But Spanglechick is completely right that this is nothing whatever to do with a lack of suitably talented black actors - there are far more talented actors around than there are parts, for people of whatever colour. In an ideal world, this wouldn't matter. We don't live in that world, though, so it does matter, and the forces in operation that bring it about are to be resisted.
> 
> For me, this is a smaller issue than another one wrt parts for black actors. Being black is still a 'thing'. In the US, UK and elsewhere, being white is a default, 'neutral' position. This is changing very very slowly, but I still see an imbalance here - I still see very few non-white actors playing parts where the race of the character is not important. I think this has possibly changed more on TV (here in Britain, at least) than in the cinema. But I suspect that it is still a far greater impediment to black actors getting decent roles (or even auditions for decent roles) than the occasional white actor browning up.



I agree with all that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

My reply to your last point on the derail lol:

It now seems we're relying on context where you've been basing the majority of your arguments on hypothetical situations. You can't have it both ways.

I could agree that there might be more professionally trained actors in the available pool of talent for a production that are white than are black. Which then exposes race (and class) opportunities when it comes to opportunities in the dramatic arts. Given that backdrop there might be white actors who are more suited to playing black roles than black people. But that doesn't bolster the argument for blacking up, if anything it proves and argues the reverse.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 6, 2014)

For me...one of the lasting frustrations of conversations like these is that instead of dealing with/focusing on the way things are and why, endless hypotheticals are posed so that some people can give their positions credence and value. Those endless, pointless hypotheticals boil my piss, and are absolutely condescending/dismissive of the lives, experiences and intelligence of real people.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> My reply to your last point on the derail lol:
> 
> It now seems we're relying on context where you've been basing the majority of your arguments on hypothetical situations. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> I could agree that there might be more professionally trained actors in the available pool of talent for a production that are white than are black. Which then exposes race (and class) opportunities when it comes to opportunities in the dramatic arts. Given that backdrop there might be white actors who are more suited to playing black roles than black people. But that doesn't bolster the argument for blacking up, if anything it proves and argues the reverse.



I can't tell whether your still being disingenuous, or really are too thick to grasp the point.

This isn't about relative numbers (about which I agree with you, by the way), but rather whether you believe that a character consists of more than just a skin colour.

But, ultimately, you've said that "there might be white actors who are more suited to playing black roles than black people".  Which goes further than what I said, in any event!  And is a complete reversal of the point you made earlier in the thread:



Citizen66 said:


> 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.



Flip-flop!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

I don't think a white person (in the uk) can ever fully grasp the constant background hum of how structural racism feels daily to a POC and it boils my piss when I'm dismissed as playing to identity politics in order to close down the debate when what I'm actually trying to do is to understand and empathise with those in that position. If anything throwing the identity politics card out is attempting to stifle the debate. The reason why identity politics exists is because class politics has completely failed to draw ethnic minorities into its sphere. The answer isn't to attack identity politics. The answer also isn't to tell people they haven't thought things through. That's why the identity politics you supposedly loathe exists ffs.

Can you join not join the dots or something?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> I can't tell whether your still being disingenuous, or really are too thick to grasp the point.
> 
> This isn't about relative numbers (about which I agree with you, by the way), but rather whether you believe that a character consists of more than just a skin colour.
> 
> ...



I honestly feel like lamping you out. The answer is to fight for equality in acting circles, not argue in favour of blacking up you fake cunt.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think a white person (in the uk) can ever fully grasp the constant background hum of how structural racism feels daily to a POC...



I agree with all that.




Citizen66 said:


> and it boils my piss when I'm dismissed as playing to identity politics in order to close down the debate when what I'm actually trying to do is to understand and empathise with those in that position.



If you don't want to be accused of that, don't do it.  I know you subsequently conceded that you shouldn't have highlighted my race and poptyping's, but you did.




Citizen66 said:


> If anything throwing the identity politics card out is attempting to stifle the debate.



Not at all.  I was willing to engage with the substance of arguments; by contrast, you've consistently sought to play the man rather than the ball, including the ridiculous cross-thread diversion.




Citizen66 said:


> The reason why identity politics exists is because class politics has completely failed to draw ethnic minorities into its sphere. The answer isn't to attack identity politics.  The answer also isn't to tell people they haven't thought things through. That's why the very identity politics you loathe exists ffs.



With respect, I doubt you have the answers to anything.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I honestly feel like lamping you out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

I really can't be arsed with entitled liberal knobheads. At least I now know you're not consistent enough to self identify as anarchist I can safely dismiss you from now on. Sacking the cleaner changes fuck all. I've got no time for supposed radicals using right wing arguments (identity politics to stifle debate is the new playing the race card) to bolster their position.

Kindly piss off.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I really can't be arsed with entitled liberal knobheads. At least I now know you're not consistent enough to self identify as anarchist I can safely dismiss you from now on. Sacking the cleaner changes fuck all. I've got no time for supposed radicals using right wing arguments (identity politics to stifle debate is the new playing the race card) to bolster their position.
> 
> Kindly piss off.



I really can't be arsed with flip-floppers who make racist comments, then get so up-tight when called on it that they start some cross-thread beef.

Mate, you should have given up when I made the offer on the other thread that we'd both stop and pretend you'd 'won'.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Ive flip flopped over nothing you delusional cunt. I'll leave that to others to decide if I have.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Ive flip flopped over nothing you delusional cunt. I'll leave that to others to decide if I have.



Suits me.



Citizen66 said:


> ... there might be white actors who are more suited to playing black roles than black people.





Citizen66 said:


> 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.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 6, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I deny it, yes. If the skin colour is such an important part of the character, then the actor who matches that tone is more likely to have experience of whatever that factor is.



Rider Haggard, who wrote Tarzan and King Solomon's Mines; and Rudyard Kipling who wrote Kim and The Man Who Would Be King, are both white. Many characters in their books, are African or South Asian. But... the characters in the books are Africans and South Asians as created and scripted by a white author.

If these books were to be made into films yet again, would South Asian or African actors be the ones to best portray people of color.... as envisioned by a white author?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 6, 2014)

Yes. What an odd question.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 6, 2014)

Just taken that weird Canadian off ignore for a second to see him claim Rider Haggard wrote Tarzan??

What a strange thing to say.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 6, 2014)

That weird Spanky is right: of course it was Edgar Rice Burroughs. Brain fart. 

Now that that's corrected, interesting to see if anyone actually responds to the point. The argument over who best portrays what sort of character misses the point that all actors are doing, is creating a live enactment of words written by a writer or screenwriter. And most of those, are white males.

There is no more intrinsic truth in a black character in some film or tv program, than the writer is able to bring to the table.

The Wire, for instance: every word spoken by every black actor, was penned by one or a combination of the four white male writers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 6, 2014)

The concensus is that actors shouldn't 'brown up' for a role, that they can't bring the requisite experience to the role. But the actors are in essence self-propelled marionettes, acting out words and scenes written by others, under the direction of others.

Should writers be writing characters who are of a race/ethnicity different from that of the writer? Should African American roles only be written by African American writers? Can a white writer bring the necessary experience to the process of creating and writing the role?

Should white directors be directing actors playing such roles?

Arguably, a white writer writing a POC role, is guilty of literary 'browning up'; same with the white director.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 6, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just taken that weird Canadian off ignore for a second to see him claim Rider Haggard wrote Tarzan?? <snip>


Tbf Haggard and Rice Boroughs have similar styles and were writing at more or less the same time.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 6, 2014)

Ethnic Minorities, Comedy and British Television. Interview with Sharat Sardana. London, Friday 26 of November 2004

http://lisa.revues.org/664

AD: But what about having Michael Bates as a blacked-up Indian servant in It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum?







SS: We did not mind because he spoke the language and something about him was okay in the way that it was okay for Peter Sellers to do it in The Party. It was affectionate. Peter Sellers loved India and Michael Bates loved India, he spoke Hindi and I think you can just tell. The blacking-up does not become a prop; it’s not part of the joke, it’s just something they have to do because they happen to be the best actors to play the part. When the blacking-up is a prop, and made to look like a joke, like in Curry and Chips for instance, then yes, I object to it, though I love Spike Milligan8. But it is silly blacking-up really.


.....my mum & dad used to know Michael Bates....served in the Ghurkas iirc...( he was good in IAHHM...Sellers was pretty dodgy though )


..presumably actors in small rep companies have to do this sort of thing all the time anyway..


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Wire, for instance: every word spoken by every black actor, was penned by one or a combination of the four white male writers.


Which I'm sure you complained about here when you watched it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The concensus is that actors shouldn't 'brown up' for a role, that *they can't bring the requisite experience to the role*. .


I'm not sure that is the consensus, tbf. It's not my contention, at least.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure that is the consensus, tbf. It's not my contention, at least.


Indeed. I'm not sure anyone is saying that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The concensus is that actors shouldn't 'brown up' for a role, that they can't bring the requisite experience to the role. But the actors are in essence self-propelled marionettes, acting out words and scenes written by others, under the direction of others.
> 
> Should writers be writing characters who are of a race/ethnicity different from that of the writer? Should African American roles only be written by African American writers? Can a white writer bring the necessary experience to the process of creating and writing the role?
> 
> ...



The alternative is to have stories that feature only black people, or only white people or whatever. All writers have to climb inside someone else's skin to write convincing characters, and they have to been keen observers of other people in order to succeed at that. 

I think the hardest chracters to write are children. Beyond that writing about anyone who is different from you is a challenge, and the fact that the results can be so sublime, or so horrible when executed badly, is why writing is worth doing. 

Nothing irks quite like a protagonist who is clearly just the author plonked into a fictional setting. You can't help but feel like the writer hasn't done his job properly, like he's plagiarised the character from himself iyswim.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

None of which excuses the shortage of black writers, directors etc in film and TV of course.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Its slightly different in drama than literature because scripts can be dynamic with actors putting their own spin on things. Children can be the easiest in that context if they're just told to behave like children.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The alternative is to have stories that feature only black people, or only white people or whatever. All writers have to climb inside someone else's skin to write convincing characters, and they have to been keen observers of other people in order to succeed at that.
> 
> I think the hardest chracters to write are children. Beyond that writing about anyone who is different from you is a challenge, and the fact that the results can be so sublime, or so horrible when executed badly, is why writing is worth doing.
> 
> Nothing irks quite like a protagonist who is clearly just the author plonked into a fictional setting. You can't help but feel like the writer hasn't done his job properly, like he's plagiarised the character from himself iyswim.


Part of the problem with child roles is the kids themselves, though.  Essentially, the mechanics of 'proper' acting* require life experience.  Emotional memory, nuance, observation. Equity do not accredit any actor training before the age of 18.  

*Children, performing outside their own life experiences, have to be instructed, even to the point of imitating inflection, posture, gesture, facial expression, pace, phrasing...  it's more like modelling.  (Some shite adults such as celebs who fancy being in a film or whatever, also require this.)   But it's not acting as such, and because it isn't connected to the internal life of the character and the actor's own choices.  And so, quite often, you can see what is missing in the final performance.  

Bad writing doesn't help, but in my experience, there are many decent scripts that have been scuppered by the understandable weakness of the child actors.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

I should probably add to my earlier point. I'm reminded of watching a documentary which covered the scene in The Godfather where Marlon Brando is playing with his Grandson who eventually finds him collapsed. The director had several tricks up his sleeve (techniques) to achieve the desired result. The child was just being a child reacting to situations presented and being filmed in the process.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I should probably add to my earlier point. I'm reminded of watching a documentary which covered the scene in The Godfather where Marlon Brando is playing with his Grandson who eventually finds him collapsed. The director had several tricks up his sleeve (techniques) to achieve the desired result. The child was just being a child reacting to situations presented and being filmed in the process.


Another one that springs to mind is the scene in Mary Poppins where she's pulling impossibly large items out of her bag. It was actually set up like a stage magician's show and the child actors had no idea this was going to happen. The look of amazement on their faces is genuine


----------



## Santino (Nov 6, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Another one that springs to mind is the scene in Mary Poppins where she's pulling impossibly large items out of her bag. It was actually set up like a stage magician's show and the child actors had no idea this was going to happen. The look of amazement on their faces is genuine


Like in Alien.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Another one that springs to mind is the scene in Mary Poppins where she's pulling impossibly large items out of her bag. It was actually set up like a stage magician's show and the child actors had no idea this was going to happen. The look of amazement on their faces is genuine



Directors use these techniques on adult actors too. Obviously a lot more difficult given the adult actors are aware they are actors and are aware that filming might be happening but the element of surprise in a situation where they want a specific reaction rather than an acted one still works if done right. It's just psychological games I guess.


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

dont think Kiplings kim is held in high regard by many south asians, or jungle book for that matter.


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

Rudyard Kipling was a hero to most 
but he never meant shit to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother fuck him and Snakes on a Plane.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> You're saying it's vital to have an actor who looks a certain way, but you can't find anyone good enough who looks that way naturally.


its not really about good enough, its about box office pulling power and producers wanting stars in lead roles whose inclusion greatly increases box office success...the market says that these actors tend to be white, though there are signs of that really changing this last decade in US films, in fact i read an article on this earlier in the year with some stats and looked at some increasingly good box office takings for films with non-white casts/leads and aimed at a broad audience, but i cant remember where now to find it again.

quick google, this article is kind of in the same ball-park
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...rend_movie_with_black_stars_overperforms.html
But one aspect of the film that shouldn’t have made folks count No Good Deed out of the running for box office glory? Its cast of black stars. In fact, it is the latest in a string of movies led by black actors that have “overperformed” at the box office, any number of which should have put to rest the still-prevailing notion that films with all or primarily black casts don’t do well at the box office.

Among the many films starring black actors not named Denzel Washington or Will Smith that leapt over low box office expectations: Jumping the Broom (a $15 million opening in 2011, behind Thor and Fast Five); Think Like a Man ($33.7 million, replacing The Hunger Games in the top spot); 42 ($27 million); The Best Man Holiday ($30 million, good for the No. 2 spot in November of 2013); Ride Along ($48 million, and the No. 1 spot for three straight weeks). And this is not to even mention Tyler Perry’s franchise of fairly steady hits."


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 7, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its not really about good enough, its about box office pulling power and producers wanting stars in lead roles whose inclusion greatly increases box office success...the market says that these actors tend to be white, though there are signs of that really changing this last decade in US films, in fact i read an article on this earlier in the year with some stats and looked at some increasingly good box office takings for films with non-white casts/leads and aimed at a broad audience, but i cant remember where now to find it again.
> 
> quick google, this article is kind of in the same ball-park
> "http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...rend_movie_with_black_stars_overperforms.html
> ...


Is this a good time to mention Slumdog Millionaire? Not that it wasn't contentious in India, for reasons mostly related to the original plot of the novel it was based upon (written by an Indian writer) - but in terms of casting and ethnicity, they cast actors of direct Asian heritage (many of them Indian nationals acting in their second language), and the film won multiple big awards and was huge at the box office, despite the lack of a bankable name cast.   And we're not talking low-budget indie film making, here.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

yes, it definitely can and does happen, and youd think it would be obvious that casting a film to make it as believable as possible would be the priority, but the problem here are the moneymen in hollywood, people who wouldnt think twice about doing a 180 on a films ending because it didnt score well with test audiences...its film-making by stats. Slumdog was a Film4 film so much more unlikely to be constrained by these idiotic decisions from financers/studio execs


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Which Boyle knows only too well. Iirc he wanted Ewan Bremner cast as Renton in Trainspotting and got told it had to ve Ewan McGregor. Then he wanted McGregor cast in the lead role of The Beach and got told it had to be Dicaprio.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Film4 still needs to make money though. They're not a charity, but I think even they were surprised by its success. I doubt even Hollywood would have got away with having the main characters played by White US or British actors


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Which Boyle knows only too well. Iirc he wanted Ewan Bremner cast as Renton in Trainspotting and got told it had to ve Ewan McGregor. Then he wanted McGregor cast in the lead role of The Beach and got told it had to be Dicaprio.


Which are both Film4 films. They've done very well out of him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Which are both Film4 films. They've done very well out of him.


So they're not averse to insisting on 'names', then. I think Bremner would have made a great Renton. At least we have his Spud - Bremner's the best thing in that film.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Well Film4 aren't the BBC. Presumably there's finance somewhere wanting to see a profit turned.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

what recent hollywood films have had 'browning up' in them?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So they're not averse to insisting on 'names', then. I think Bremner would have made a great Renton. At least we have his Spud - Bremner's the best thing in that film.


I saw Bremner as Renton in the play and he was brilliant. It was weird and not quite right to see McGregor playing him but Bremner made Spud his own totally.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well Film4 aren't the BBC. Presumably there's finance somewhere wanting to see a profit turned.


absolutely, but its clear from their output that there is some genuine desire in making interesting films there


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I saw Bremner as Renton in the play and he was brilliant. It was weird and not quite right to see McGregor playing him but Bremner made Spud his own totally.


tbf I thought McGregor was good, too. But this is one of many instances where acting ability is not the criterion. Bremner was basically told he wasn't quite good looking enough, wasn't he? Nowt to do with talent.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

ska invita said:


> what recent hollywood films have had 'browning up' in them?


The new Bible epic in the OP.
Prince Of Persia
Lone Ranger
Star Trek (Khan is played by the whitest man ever)
And what the fuck was Angelina Jolie playing at in A Mighty Heart?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

ska invita said:


> absolutely, but its clear from their output that there is some genuine desire in making interesting films there


Yes, but they still need hits. More so than the huge studios owned by behemoth multinationals who can afford the odd turkey.
BTW Michelle Gomez from Green Wing was in the play I saw and one of the Hobbits (Pip?) played Tommy


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf I thought McGregor was good, too. But this is one of many instances where acting ability is not the criterion. Bremner was basically told he wasn't quite good looking enough, wasn't he? Nowt to do with talent.


I imagine so. I wasn't criticising McGregor's performance. He was just harder to accept in that role as I'd already seen Brember doing it brilliantly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but they still need hits. More so than the huge studios owned by behemoth multinationals who can afford the odd turkey.


Really? I don't know the business model of Film4, but the multinationals need to send profit out. If Film4 is run on a basis that profits from hits are not sent out to investors but ploughed back in, they might have more space for the odd turkey, particularly if they're not forking out for the star fees.


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2014)

In the tv series Tyrant, there's a pair of supposedly half-Arab, half-English brothers. The good brother is played by a white English actor, the bad brother by an Israeli Arab actor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> The new Bible epic in the OP.
> Prince Of Persia
> Lone Ranger
> Star Trek (Khan is played by the whitest man ever)
> And what the fuck was Angelina Jolie playing at in A Mighty Heart?




he's played by a white man in 'wrath of Khan'


is anyone trek geek enough to know, but I'm pretty sure the character isn't meant to be brown, khans just the name. He's a genetically engineered supersoldier


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but they still need hits. More so than the huge studios owned by behemoth multinationals who can afford the odd turkey.


they do, most producers dont want to lose money, but different production groups will approach a project with a different attitude - jsut look through film4s back catalogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film4_Productions and its clear they are interested in making quality films - certain hollywood studios could give a shit but for the return.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Oh just thought of another browning up example: Dominic Cooper playing Saddam Hussein's double. Forget the name of the film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

ska invita said:


> they do, most producers dont want to lose money, but different production groups will approach a project with a different attitude - jsut look through film4s back catalogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film4_Productions and its clear they are interested in making quality films - certain hollywood studios could give a shit but for the return.


Yes, and the films are smaller scale too, not £200m FX extravaganzas.


----------



## fishfinger (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh just thought of another browning up example: Dominic Cooper playing Saddam Hussein's double. Forget the name of the film.


It was Uday Hussein's double. The film was "The devil's double"


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> It was Uday Hussein's double. The film was "The devil's double"


Oops


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

So have we basically established that it's the audience that is racist?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> The new Bible epic in the OP.
> Prince Of Persia
> Lone Ranger
> Star Trek (Khan is played by the whitest man ever)
> And what the fuck was Angelina Jolie playing at in A Mighty Heart?


i havent see any of these - just had a search of the posters now

looks like Star Trek is a dubious one, see DotComs post above.

bible epic and prince of persia looks like the old white jesus thing... sad but predictable.

The Mighty Heart one...hmm... well according to wiki



> The announcement of the casting of Angelina Jolie in the role of Mariane Pearl drew criticism within the African American community.[19] Orville Lloyd Douglas, a pop critic, has criticized the casting[20] because, he said, "Jolie is white" and Mariane Pearl is "mixed race". In fact, Pearl is the multi-racial daughter of a Dutch-Jewish father and an Afro-Chinese-Cuban mother.[16][21][22] Pearl personally chose Jolie to play the lead in A Mighty Heart.[23]
> 
> In response to casting complaints, Pearl said "I have heard some criticism about her casting, but it is not about the color of your skin. It is about who you are. I asked her to play the role—even though she is way more beautiful than I am—because I felt a real kinship to her. She put her whole heart into it, and I think she understood why we should do this movie. We had something to say that we knew we should say together."[23]









this might be a good case to put Athos's position to the test. I rate MIchael Winterbottom and imagine that this film is probably pretty good.


and then in lone ranger are we talking about jonny depp playing a native american
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?



in a way this is in keeping with the original lone ranger, US western tradition, and also smacks of the need for a star on board.
of all of the ones on the list that seems the most offensive to me - it was out of order in the 30s for a whole variety of reasons, and to carry on the tradition now is pretty insulting i think. Even with the Athos meritocracy test, the bad history here is the most explicit and most inexcusable to repeat.




Citizen66 said:


> So have we basically established that it's the audience that is racist?


I dont think so, there are black film stars just as likely to draw huge audiences as white film stars - its a cynicism and conservatism by studio execs thats to blame.

this is the big question with pop culutre - is it a case of The Pubic Gets What The Public Wants - Thats Entertainment - or is it a market-driven spiralling down to a lowest common denominator. I think its the second - audiences tastes can be nurtured and challenged and whatsmore are probably several steps ahead what we are fed.

The whole movie star thing is total bullshit. Talk shows with actors prattling on make me want to break something. Of all the people in the world actors are way down the list of people who I want to hear being interviewed. The industry happily turns them into gods with fawning devotees. I want an actor to be anonymous - i want to know nothing about them and ideally not be able to tell that its them in the film. Gary Oldman and Ben Kingsely are two big name actors who manage to pull this off for me despite their fame whereas Jonnny Depp is poison to a film for me. Its impossible to suspend your disbelief with someone like that - not a problem in a pantomime like Pirates of the Caribbean, but anything more serious and its all over.

Studios should be braver - Star Wars was a smash with a cast of relative unknowns - people believed the characters as the actors didnt have that much baggage. The 3 new ones are shit for the same reason - oh look, theres keira knightly, theres samuel jackson, theres ewan mcgregor. shite.

i think hollywood in the 70s was less afraid of this and aspired to some kind of realism in its films - nowadays fantasy dominates and the fact that its Actor X as Character Y is accepted as part of the spectacle...through talk shows we're sold that the demystifying of the role is part of the fun of it.

i think its all this kind of industry shit that makes the 'browning up' still hang around longer than it should do....there are so many actors out there and so many interesting films that could be made...save for the odd exception the mechanics of the industry just doesnt allow these films to be made. The model is so limiting that filmmakers end up having to push circles through square holes, and that includes casting. i blame the bosses!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

It all comes down to the essential fact that there is no white actor good enough to play an explicitly black character better than a black actor. Simple as.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It all comes down to the essential fact that there is no white actor good enough to play an explicitly black character better than a black actor. Simple as.


 
Are we going round again - that'll be another 12 pages at least...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Are we going round again - that'll be another 12 pages at least...



How come no one complained about Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The Mighty Heart one...hmm... well according to wiki
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).

But hopefully some well-meaning white, male liberal can tell her why she's wrong.  Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It all comes down to the essential fact that there is no white actor good enough to play an explicitly black character better than a black actor. Simple as.



Essentially essentialism.

Clearly, it's not 'simple as'.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How come no one complained about Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi?


 
Apparently he's half Indian.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Apparently he's half Indian.


is he indeed?

What about Christopher Lee as Jinnah?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2014)

I preffered him in sexy beast tbh


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What about Christopher Lee as Jinnah?


 
We didn't do that one.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I preffered him in sexy beast tbh



Have you seen Ray Winstone as Sitting Bull, that was a stunning performance


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).
> 
> But hopefully some well-meaning white liberal can tell her why she's wrong.  Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.


Mariane Pearl obviously just wanted Angelina Jolie to play her in a film. What she says about it doesn't suggest that she thought that there is no black actor capable of playing her. It was a personal decision, neither right nor wrong. It has no bearing on the argument. It absolutely doesn't change the fact that white actors have long been systematically preferred over black actors (for certain roles) because there's lots of racism about. 

Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> Mariane Pearl obviously just wanted Angelina Jolie to play her in a film.



I agree.  And she gave her reasons; essentially, that she thought Jolie the right person for the job, regardless of her skin colour.




Mation said:


> What she says about it doesn't suggest that she thought that there is no black actor capable of playing her.



I agree, she didn't suggest it.  And I don't believe it either.




Mation said:


> It was a personal decision, neither right nor wrong.  It has no bearing on the argument.



Her opinion on whether or not it can ever be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role has as much bearing as any of the opinions expressed here.




Mation said:


> It absolutely doesn't change the fact that white actors have long been systematically preferred over black actors (for certain roles) because there's lots of racism about.



I agree (and have from the outset).




Mation said:


> Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.



No.  Racism in Hollywood (and wider society) results in discrimination against black actors (which, it goes without saying, I abhor).  The principle that I argued i.e. that it is wrong to say that there are no circumstances in which it is ok for a white actor to play a non-white character, even where those circumstances include the decision not being based on racism (implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious), does not  (and, as a matter of logic, cannot, in itself) lead to discrimination against black actors.


Don't get me wrong.  I don't like blacking up where it's a way to ridicule black people, or where it's a way to avoid employing black people.  And I don't doubt that there are contemporary instances of blacking up which fall into both of those categories, particularly the latter.  And, not only do I condemn casting decision that are born out of a personal dislike of black people, but I also condemn the studios' decisions not to cast black actors because of the box-office receipts, and the audience's attitudes that produce that situation.  However, notwithstanding all that, like Mariane Pearl, I can conceive of certain situations where it would be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role, albeit that I think it'd have to be a very clear-cut case before I personally thought that such a casting decision was justified, given the contentious and offensive history of 'blacking up'.

I understand that you disagree.  But there's little point going round and round.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Seemingly (from the passage you quoted) it's Mariane Pearl's position, too.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, she thinks that there's more to her character than the colour of her skin, such that casting an actor who is better able to capture the totality of her persona is a more nuanced decision than asserting that in no circumstances can it be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role (an implicitly racist idea that effectively suggests that people of colour are necessarily more alike each other than they can be like white people, regardless of their other characteristics).
> 
> But hopefully some well-meaning white, male liberal can tell her why she's wrong.  Or perhaps she's allowed to hold that view, because she wins intersectionality top trumps.


i think its not that unlikley that the reason Mariane wanted it is also because Angelina would greatly increase the box office taking and Mariane would make a lot more money out of it as a result. She wouldve been on a percentage.

The other issue with this film is that Mariane has a Dutch-Jewish father and an Afro-Chinese-Cuban mother. In racist discourse that makes her black, but no doubt she would identify with all parts of her heritage and based on that Anglina playing the part is less of a problem, particularly as the make-up job wasn't too bad. If Mariane had african hertiage on both sides it would be that much more impossible to pull off.

I agree with Athos to a point in that theres some grey area here and room for possible discretion, but if we want a hard and fast rule the best has to be cast someone whose ethnicity suits the part. To make an exception to that - and pull out all the stops in the make up department - means there has to be a really good justification. Johnny Depp in Lone Ranger isnt one. In fact its going to be rare that the case can be made.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> Your lovely, logical argument doesn't in fact lead to the best actors being cast following nuanced decisions, it just results in white actors getting the work.



Hence why the people who tend to be arguing from a logical position tend to be...


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have you seen Ray Winstone as Sitting Bull, that was a stunning performance


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Hence why the people who tend to be arguing from a logical position tend to be...



Just to be clear.  Are you suggesting that my argument is motivated by racism on my part?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Just to be clear.  Are you suggesting that my argument is motivated by racism on my part?



Why would you think that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It all comes down to the essential fact that there is no white actor good enough to play an explicitly black character better than a black actor. Simple as.


Are you saying all black people look alike?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why would you think that?



Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Are we going round again - that'll be another 12 pages at least...


Looks like it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.



I think that says more about you than it does me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are you saying all black people look alike?


Zulus fahsands of 'em


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think that says more about you than it does me.



So you weren't trying to hint that my argument was based on racism on my part?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> So you weren't trying to hint that my argument was based on racism on my part?


why would you think that?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> why would you think that?



I've explained why I thought that you might be.  If I'm wrong, that's great.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I've explained why I thought that you might be.  If I'm wrong, that's great.



Where did you explain it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.



Ah found it.

Why do you think it implies that and why do you think white people are more likely to justify discrimination?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where did you explain it?


 Post #436


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Post #436


see post #444


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah found it.
> 
> Why do you think white people are more likely to justify discrimination?



Some white people are more likely to justify discrimination from which they benefit, because of that benefit.

But that's not why I took the stance I did (which, for the record, wasn't to defend discrimination).

I thought you were trying to hint that it was.  If I got that wrong, then that's fine.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Some white people are more likely to justify discrimination from which they benefit, because of that benefit.
> 
> But that's not why I took the stance I did (which, for the record, wasn't to defend discrimination).
> 
> I thought you were trying to hint that it was.  If I got that wrong, then that's fine.



Do you think it's possible to do things which lead to unintended consequences?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you think it's possible to do things which lead to unintended consequences?



Yes.  But, your post implied that white people pursue that line argument because it results in white actors being cast (regardless of whether they are the best for the role); that's a causal link, not an unintended consequence.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> For me...one of the lasting frustrations of conversations like these is that instead of dealing with/focusing on the way things are and why, endless hypotheticals are posed so that some people can give their positions credence and value. Those endless, pointless hypotheticals boil my piss, and are absolutely condescending/dismissive of the lives, experiences and intelligence of real people.



I agree mate. After Athos continually tagged and quoted me after i asked him not so politely to do one. I made this point to him on the cleaning thread derail. He conceded slightly. But then has continued to argue with citizen and others and minimise experience of POC. It's bang out of order.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yes.  But, your post implied that white people pursue that line argument because it results in white actors being cast (regardless of whether they are the best for the role); that's a causal link, not an unintended consequence.


I think you're new to this debating lark. 

Why do _you_ think white people might take a particular position on this issue?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I agree mate. After Athos continually tagged and quoted me after i asked him not so politely to do one. I made this point to him on the cleaning thread derail. He conceded slightly. But then has continued to argue with citizen and others and minimise experience of POC. It's bang out of order.



Posing hypotheticals against real experiences is often the first resort of the scoundrel


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I agree mate. After Athos continually tagged and quoted me after i asked him not so politely to do one. I made this point to him on the cleaning thread derail. He conceded slightly. But then has continued to argue with citizen and others and minimise experience of POC. It's bang out of order.



I'm sorry that you feel that.  But nothing I've said was intended to, or, in my opinion, actually tends to minimise the experience of POC (accepting, of course, that I don't have that experience).  I've been at pains to acknowledge it, and to condemn racism in  Hollywood and beyond.

Had you asked me with courtesy not to quote/tag you, I would have responded in kind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think you're new to this debating lark.
> 
> Why do _you_ think white people might take a particular position on this issue?



Different white people have a variety of reasons for taking a variety of positions.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

My mistake... i was polite initially and then called you a cock. I should've just called you a cock from the off.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> My mistake... i was polite initially and then called you a cock. I should've just called you a cock from the off.



From memory, in the first post in which you asked me not to quote or tag you, you called me a cockend (going on to call me a twat and a cunt in subsequent posts).


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Posing hypotheticals against real experiences is often the first resort of the scoundrel



It was posed against moral absolutism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Different white people have a variety of reasons for taking a variety of positions.



What do you think they are and why do you think they take them?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

No go back and read the thread. I said I'm not talking to you about it and then you went on to quote and tag.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What do you think they are and why do you think they take them?



With regard to white actors playing black characters, some white people reject the notion that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable, because it suits their interests/they're racist etc.; other white people (and people of colour) reject that notion because they don't believe that such a moral absolute bears the scrutiny of logic/they can conceive of circumstances where it is morally acceptable.  Similarly, some people (white and black) take the opposing view for reasons which could include (amongst other things) a sincerely held conviction, a poorly thought-through argument, an unwillingness to speak out against the consensus, or to flatter their own egos.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> With regard to white actors playing black characters, some white people reject the notion that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable, because it suits their interests/they're racist etc.; other white people (and people of colour) reject that notion because they don't believe that such a moral absolute bears the scrutiny of logic/they can conceive of circumstances where it is morally acceptable.  Similarly, some people (white and black) take the opposing view for reasons which could include (amongst other things) a sincerely held conviction, a poorly thought-through argument, an unwillingness to speak out against the consensus, or to flatter their own egos.



First of all it's useful to know what some of the terms you're using mean to you

what do you mean by white?

what do you mean by black?

what do you mean by people of colour?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> No go back and read the thread. I said I'm not talking to you about it and then you went on to quote and tag.



Should have put me on ignore then. like I suggested.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Should have put me on ignore then. like I suggested.



Why do you think it's acceptable for you to chase people around just because they have a different view to you?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> First of all it's useful to know what some of the terms you're using mean to you
> 
> what do you mean by white?
> 
> ...



Really?  Seriously?

Tell you what, since you used the term 'white' in the post with which I took issue (because it appeared to me that you were hinting my position was motivated by racism), why don't you define it?

But this is just nonsense, pissing about, isn't it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Really?  Seriously?
> 
> Tell you what, since you used the term 'white' in the post with which I took issue (because it appeared to me that you were hinting my position was motivated by racism), why don't you define it?
> 
> But this is just nonsense, pissing about, isn't it?



So far you have failed to answer a single question put to you - I'm slightly disappointed but not surprised, I suppose that airy realm of pure logic you dwell in is very distracting.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why do you think it's acceptable for you to chase people around just because they have a different view to you?



I don't think that's acceptable; and I don't accept that's what I did.  But some of what (s)he said was pertinent to the debate, so I quoted it (and referred to the poster).


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So far you have failed to answer a single question put to you - I'm slightly disappointed but not surprised, I suppose that airy realm of pure logic you dwell in is very distracting.



Because I don't think you've posed them to further the debate, but merely to piss about.

Until that became apparent, I was answering your questions.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Because I don't think you've posed them to further the debate, but merely to piss about.
> 
> Until that became apparent, I was answering your questions.



You've not answered a single question from anyone


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You've not answered a single question from anyone



Demonstrably a lie:




Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why would you think that?





Athos said:


> Because the implication was that the argument I have presented would more likely be presented by a white person, which, in turn, hints at the idea that it's a cover to justify discrimination.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> why would you think that?





Athos said:


> I've explained why I thought that you might be.  If I'm wrong, that's great.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where did you explain it?





Athos said:


> Post #436






Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah found it.
> 
> Why do you think it implies that and why do you think white people are more likely to justify discrimination?





Athos said:


> Some white people are more likely to justify discrimination from which they benefit, because of that benefit.
> 
> But that's not why I took the stance I did (which, for the record, wasn't to defend discrimination).
> 
> I thought you were trying to hint that it was.  If I got that wrong, then that's fine.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you think it's possible to do things which lead to unintended consequences?





Athos said:


> Yes.  But, your post implied that white people pursue that line argument because it results in white actors being cast (regardless of whether they are the best for the role); that's a causal link, not an unintended consequence.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think you're new to this debating lark.
> 
> Why do _you_ think white people might take a particular position on this issue?





Athos said:


> Different white people have a variety of reasons for taking a variety of positions.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> What do you think they are and why do you think they take them?





Athos said:


> With regard to white actors playing black characters, some white people reject the notion that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable, because it suits their interests/they're racist etc.; other white people (and people of colour) reject that notion because they don't believe that such a moral absolute bears the scrutiny of logic/they can conceive of circumstances where it is morally acceptable.  Similarly, some people (white and black) take the opposing view for reasons which could include (amongst other things) a sincerely held conviction, a poorly thought-through argument, an unwillingness to speak out against the consensus, or to flatter their own egos.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why do you think it's acceptable for you to chase people around just because they have a different view to you?





Athos said:


> I don't think that's acceptable; and I don't accept that's what I did.  But some of what (s)he said was pertinent to the debate, so I quoted it (and referred to the poster).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

They're not answers they're evasions and derailings


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They're not answers they're evasions and derailings



That's a bizarre claim.  

They were straightforward answers to all your questions (except the definitions - by which time it became clear you weren't serious).

I think the truth is that they're not the answers you'd have liked.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry that you feel that.


You don't apologise for what someone else feels. You apologise for your actions.


> But nothing I've said was intended


Intent is irrelevant when it comes to offence. If you do something with the best intentions, but it still causes offence, you might want to consider the thing itself, rather than the intent with which it was done.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Crispy said:


> You don't apologise for what someone else feels. You apologise for your actions.
> 
> Intent is irrelevant when it comes to offence. If you do something with the best intentions, but it still causes offence, you might want to consider the thing itself, rather than the intent with which it was done.



Yes, and, as I explained in the second half of the sentence (which you didn't quote), I don't think I did minimise the experiences of people of colour.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yes, and, as I explained in the second half of the sentence (which you didn't quote), I don't think I did minimise the experiences of people of colour.


What you think you did and what you did are not necessarily the same


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Crispy said:


> You don't apologise for what someone else feels.



You do if the apology isn't genuine.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Crispy said:


> What you think you did and what you did are not necessarily the same



True enough.  But the fact that debate can have the the unintended consequence of upsetting people doesn't necessarily mean that the discussion should be off limits.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> True enough.  But the fact that debate can have the the unintended consequence of upsetting people doesn't necessarily mean that the discussion should be off limits.


Absolutely not. But remember that apologies are about humility, not forgiveness.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Absolutely not. But remember that apologies are about humility, not forgiveness.



I haven't asked to be forgiven.  I said I was sorry because it's regrettable that people are upset, not because I have any cause for remorse.  Obviously, I'd rather people weren't upset by what I said, but, nevertheless, I don't think I ought not to have pursued that line of argument, or been prevented from pursuing it (by self-censorship, bullying, or for any other reason).


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I don't think I did minimise the experiences of people of colour.



Yeah but you have and continue to do so.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I don't think I did minimise the experiences of people of colour.



Why do you think you didn't minimise the experiences of people of colour?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Yeah but you have and continue to do so.



Is it possible for me to disagree with a person of colour without minimising the experience of all people of colour?  What about if some people of colour agree with me?  Where does that leave us?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why do you think you didn't minimise the experiences of people of colour?



Becasue disagreeing with anyone doesn't mean minimising their experience.  In particular, disagreeing with some people of colour certainly doesn't mean minimising the experiences of people of colour more generally?  How could it?  And what if other people of colour agree with me, then what?  The idea that the colour of the person expressing an opinion somehow trumps its content is dangerous.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Is it possible for me to disagree with a person of colour without minimising the experience of all people of colour?  What about if some people of colour agree with me?  Where does that leave us?


should all people of colour have the same opinions and ideas then?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> should all people of colour have the same opinions and ideas then?



Of course not.  Nothing I wrote would suggest that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

God, 'people of colour' is a horrible phrase.


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I agree.  And she gave her reasons; essentially, that she thought Jolie the right person for the job, regardless of her skin colour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're talking at cross purposes.

I didn't mention your logical argument to suggest that, in logic, it leads to a world in which black actors aren't marginalised. I'm aware that you realise that. 

I do understand your argument. I also agree with it. There is no a priori reason why persons of any 'race' can't portray persons of any other race - and here's the important bit -in a world that's free of racism.

The reason I think your argument is useless is because using it only serves to back up the reality, which you acknowledge, in which white actors get the parts.

As Rutita1 has said, it's annoying hypothetical bollocks that doesn't reflect the world. The unintentional (in your case, I guess) consequence is to maintain the status quo. You're not helping. 

If you are truly anti-racist, then help.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Becasue disagreeing with anyone doesn't mean minimising their experience.  In particular, disagreeing with some people of colour certainly doesn't mean minimising the experiences of people of colour more generally?  How could it?  And what if other people of colour agree with me, then what?  The idea that the colour of the person expressing an opinion somehow trumps its content is dangerous.



You just don't get it. It's not about disagreeing. It's about your continual focus on hypothetical situations just to prove your point that blackface is somehow justifiable.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> We're talking at cross purposes.
> 
> I didn't mention your logical argument to suggest that, in logic, it leads to a world in which black actors aren't marginalised. I'm aware that you realise that.
> 
> ...



This. So much.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> You just don't get it. It's not about disagreeing. It's about your continual focus on hypothetical situations just to prove your point that blackface is somehow justifiable.



I get it; I just disagree.

I've not said it is justifiable, but rather that it could be in certain situations.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I get it; I just disagree.
> 
> I've not said it is justifiable, but rather that it could be in certain situations.



I'm quoting that in case you decide to edit.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> I do understand your argument. I also agree with it. There is no a priori reason why persons of any 'race' can't portray persons of any other race - and here's the important bit -in a world that's free of racism.
> 
> The reason I think your argument is useless is because using it only serves to back up the reality, which you acknowledge, in which white actors get the parts.
> 
> ...



So you accept the truth of what I was saying, but, nevertheless think I ought not to repeat it.

Well, for a start, I wouldn't have repeated it if others had blindly insisted (at length) that it was wrong.

Secondly, I don't agree that the demise of racism will be hastened by not speaking the truth.  Denying the truth of certain positions because they don't further a particular position makes it easier for that position to be dismissed.

And to deny that truth by insisting that it minimises the experience of people of colour, or hinting that it's motivated by racism (I'm not saying you've done that), is a dishonest way to close down discussion, and doesn't recognise that other people of colour have different experiences, and can hold different view e.g. Mariane Pearl.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I'm quoting that in case you decide to edit.



Good for you.  And good luck if you're trying to find any suggestion of me claiming that it is justifiable _per se_, without reference to circumstances.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2014)

how about we have a list of film roles were actors played a part where the skin colour of the character is different to that the actor was born with, and they did a good job of it, and it can be justified...obviously there are endless ones of people playing different ethnicities, but usually this skin colour is more similiar. Id be curious to see how long that list might be


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> So you accept the truth of what I was saying, but, nevertheless think I ought not to repeat it.
> 
> Well, for a start, I wouldn't have repeated it if others had blindly insisted (at length) that it was wrong.
> 
> ...


Ok. I officially give up. You've missed the point. Again. Why blacking up is not ok. You're not helping and you're not able to see why it is that you're not.

Sorry, other people on this thread - I've only just caught up with you!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation wise move. Did you see what I quoted above.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> Ok. I officially give up. You've missed the point. Again. Why blacking up is not ok. You're not helping and you're not able to see why it is that you're not.
> 
> Sorry, other people on this thread - I've only just caught up with you!



It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; rather, I don't agree with it.  I don't think that the most effective way to combat racism is to refuse to speak certain truths; you seem to, at least insofar as this truth goes. I think that plays into the hands of those who claim that anti-racism is bad because it is anti-merititocracy.  You think otherwise, and yours is a perfectly sensible position, but not one to which I  subscribe.  I'm happy to agree to disagree.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Mation wise move. Did you see what I quoted above.



You seem to think that you've made some sort of point with that quote.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos is not worth debating with, he never responds properly - he cannot defend his position or surrender it. He will never understand basic solidarity or openness to alternative points of view to the dominant narrative.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

I don't know why your now championing meritocracy. Even GCSE sociology students know that it reproduces current inequalities. Worse than that it blames people who don't rise to the top for being stupid and lazy.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Athos is not worth debating with, he never responds properly - he cannot defend his position or surrender it. He will never understand basic solidarity or openness to alternative points of view to the dominant narrative.



I've defended my position, and responded at length to the welter of opposing views.  And I've done so notwithstanding that I've been called names, lied about, had irrelevant threads resurrected to score cheap points, and even told that someone would like to do me physical harm - not especially solidaristic acts.  No, I've not surrendered my position on this issue, but have changed my mind on others - I'm not too proud to change my mind when I'm shown the error of my ways; I am too proud to be bullied into it.  All I've done is posit an alternative to the dominant narrative on this thread!


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I don't know why your now championing meritocracy. Even GCSE sociology students know that it reproduces current inequalities. Worse than that it blames people who don't rise to the top for being stupid and lazy.



I haven't championed it.  I explained that it forms the basis of a lot of criticism of anti-racism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I've defended my position, and responded at length to the welter of opposing views.  And I've done so notwithstanding that I've been called names, lied about, had irrelevant threads resurrected to score cheap points, and even told that someone would like to do me physical harm - not especially solidaristic acts.  No, I've not surrendered my position on this issue, but have changed my mind on others - I'm not too proud to change my mind when I'm shown the error of my ways; I am too proud to be bullied into it.  All I've done is posit an alternative to the dominant narrative on this thread!


when will poor whitey catch a break?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> when will poor whitey catch a break?



Another cheap shot.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> when will poor whitey catch a break?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Another cheap shot.



actually no, that's exactly what that post deserved.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> actually no, that's exactly what that post deserved.



Bollocks is it.  I've never complained about the plight of white people.  Quite the opposite: I've acknowledged and condemned the racism from which black people suffer in Hollywood.  I was merely pointing out that your criticism of a lack of solidarity on my part is hypocritical.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

It is true, you lack solidarity. You're part of the problem.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> It is true, you lack solidarity. You're part of the problem.



If you say so.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Black people this, women that, I'm just glad that someone is at long last standing up for the hypotheticals.


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Mation wise move. Did you see what I quoted above.


Aye. Brick wall is brick wall. Sad that it's a well meaning one, but a brick wall nonetheless.


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Black people this, women that, I'm just glad that someone is at long last standing up for the hypotheticals.


Post.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Black people this, women that, I'm just glad that someone is at long last standing up for the hypotheticals.



Yeah, because that's exactly what motivated me - the rights of imaginary white people.   Not a rejection of a demonstrably nonsensical moral absolute, which, as I've explained, I don't consider to be the most effective way of countering racism.

It's telling that much of the argument against my position relies on a dishonest caricature of it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Yeah and blackface is a dishonest caricature of POC but your all for it, eh.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> It's telling that much of the argument against my position relies on a dishonest caricature of it.





poptyping said:


> Yeah and blackface is a dishonest caricature of POC but your all for it, eh.


QED.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Keep going mate. You're only making yourself look like a tit


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Keep going mate. You're only making yourself look like a tit



Long time before I catch up with you.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Long time before I catch up with you.



The wit on that


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> The wit on that



Sorry, Noel Coward, how could I ever compete with:



poptyping said:


> Keep going mate. You're only making yourself look like a tit


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Nothing like the sight of a white man insisting to women of colour that he knows better about racism :thumbs :


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Nothing like the sight of a white man insisting to women of colour that he knows better about racism :thumbs :



Presumably you've chosen to ignore the views of Mariane Pearl, another woman of colour.  Convenient for you.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Presumably you've chosen to ignore the views of Mariane Pearl, another woman of colour.  Convenient for you.



No idea who she is tbh, does she post on urban?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> No idea who she is tbh, does she post on urban?



Not to my knowledge, but she was quoted earlier on the thread.  Don't let these inconvenient facts put you off the comedic sniping, though.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Sorry, Noel Coward, how could I ever compete with:



It was a statement of fact not a joke, silly


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> It was a statement of fact not a joke, silly



You really are on fire.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Not to my knowledge, but she was quoted earlier on the thread.  Don't let these inconvenient facts put you off the comedic sniping, though.



Okay, so so far it's you and one non-poster who you've decided supports you in correcting the women of colour you're insisting are wrong about racism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yeah, because that's exactly what motivated me - the rights of imaginary white people.   Not a rejection of a demonstrably nonsensical moral absolute, which, as I've explained, I don't consider to be the most effective way of countering racism.
> 
> It's telling that much of the argument against my position relies on a dishonest caricature of it.


But we live in _this world_. Because of its baggage, white people blacking up isn't a neutral thing to do. And in the case of films - yes, even in the case of Angelina Jolie and Mariane Pearl - it's a product of, and a reinforcement of, structural inequalities. Taken as a whole, mainstream representation of black women in particular in US films is rather shocking, no? A white woman plays a mixed race part. Meanwhile a mixed race woman like Halle Berry gets the parts of black women. There are very few black female film stars in the US, and very few mainstream directors who create roles for them. 

btw in the case of Mariane Pearl, she's doing publicity for her film. I wouldn't take anything she says particularly seriously. What else is she going to say? It's pr fluff. She's making $$$$$.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Okay, so so far it's you and one non-poster who you've decided supports you in correcting the women of colour you're insisting are wrong about racism.



Yeah, because an argument's worth is dictated by weight of numbers.

The fact that Mation and I disagree about the efficacy of a particular tactic in the fight against racism is not quite the same as me insisting she's wrong.  And, in any event, she accepted my central point (the hypothetical one).

In your opinion, what are the circumstances in which it is acceptable for a white person to disagree with a person of colour regarding race?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> In your opinion, what are the circumstances in which it is acceptable for a white person to disagree with a person of colour regarding race?



Too busy listening to people to start worrying about hypotheticals.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> btw in the case of Mariane Pearl, she's doing publicity for her film. I wouldn't take anything she says particularly seriously. What else is she going to say? It's pr fluff. She's making $$$$$.



So, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence that she's not sincere, you've discounted what she said.  And it just happens to undermine your argument.  A bit too convenient.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Too busy listening to people to start worrying about hypotheticals.



Handy for you.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Handy for you.



Well yeah, means I don't end up spending my days shouting at people why I know better than them.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Well yeah, means I don't end up spending my days shouting at people why I know better than them.



Ok.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> So, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence that she's not sincere, you've discounted what she said.  And it just happens to undermine your argument.  A bit too convenient.


I have recognised that she is promoting her film. She's bound to talk up how perfect her star is in that film. It is naive to think that this has anything to do with sincerity. She may or may not be sincere, I don't know. But no, I don't take pr guff seriously. And neither should you.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have recognised that she is promoting her film. She's bound to talk up how perfect her star is in that film. It is naive to think that this has anything to do with sincerity. She may or may not be sincere, I don't know. But no, I don't take pr guff seriously. And neither should you.



This isn't a case where she's required to offer an _ex post facto_ justification; she specifically states that she chose Jolie because of the connection between them.  Are you saying she's lying?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> This isn't a case where she's required to offer an _ex post facto_ justification; she specifically states that she chose Jolie because of the connection between them.  Are you saying she's lying?


I'm saying that_ she is doing pr for her film_. Have you not seen Hollywood pr before? It's always like this.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm saying that_ she is doing pr for her film_. Have you not seen Hollywood pr before? It's always like this.



And part of that PR is a bare-faced lie?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

This is showbusiness, baby.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is showbusiness, baby.



And I was the one accused of disregarding the experience and views of a woman of colour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

But to answer your narrow point, _hypothetically_, yes, part of Hollywood pr is and always has been to tell bare-faced lies where necessary.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yeah, because an argument's worth is dictated by weight of numbers.
> 
> The fact that Rutita1 disagree about the efficacy of a particular tactic in the fight against racism is not quite the same as me insisting she's wrong.  And, in any event, she accepted my central point (the hypothetical one).
> 
> In your opinion, what are the circumstances in which it is acceptable for a white person to disagree with a person of colour regarding race?



Seriously, until you make an inch of effort to hear me and the things that I experience, never ever, quote/misquote me again...I ask you this and nothing more.

I do not accept your endless selfcomforting hypotheticals, they boil my piss, they disappoint me...read back a few pages to know and understand how your hypotheticals affect people like me.

I am not waiting for people like you/ with your perspective to hear and appreciate people like me btw, just so you know.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Seriously, until you make an inch of effort to hear me and the things that I experience, never ever, quote/misquote me again...I ask you this and nothing more.
> 
> I do not accept your endless selfcomforting hypotheticals, they boil my piss, they disappoint me...read back a few pages to know and understand how your hypotheticals affect people like me.
> 
> I am not waiting for people with your perspective to hear and appreciate people like me btw, just so you know.




Just before you quoted, I edited that post.  I meant to refer to Mation, not you.  Sorry.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

WOC  are all the same to you, innit.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> WOC  are all the same to you, innit.



Predictably cheap shot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Low punch, pt.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Not undeserved tho, eh.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Just before you quoted, I edited that post.  I meant to refer to Mation, not you.  Sorry.



I don't give a shit...I will defend Mation and her perspective in exactly the same way.

...and no, we are not the same!


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't give a shit...I will defend Mation and her perspective in exactly the same way.
> 
> ...and no, we are not the same!



Ok.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Ok.



Okay?  No, own this shit. Rutita and Mation are distinctively different user names...yet you mix us up and accuse PT of delivering a low blow? NOPE.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Athos is not worth debating with, he never responds properly - he cannot defend his position or surrender it. He will never understand basic solidarity or openness to alternative points of view to the dominant narrative.


He's using right wing arguments to bolster his imaginary intellectually neutral position.


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

What's with this people of color shit anyways might as well call us coloureds and be done with it,


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Just before you quoted, I edited that post.  I meant to refer to Mation, not you.  Sorry.


I'm sure you are. Genuinely. 

It is kind of relevant though, given the dissimilarity between mine and Rutita1's names.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Weird how I raised this a few years ago and no one gave a shit. The only response mentions youknowwho. 
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/browning-up.262336/


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Okay?  No, own this shit. Rutita and Mation are distinctively different user names...yet you mix us up and accuse PT of delivering a low blow? NOPE.



It's not uncommon for me to mix posters up, regardless of race, sex etc..  To suggest otherwise, in order to hint at racism on my part, is a cheap shot. But one which suits the narrative you and others are tying to push.  So there's little else I can say but 'ok'.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

You fucked up, kid.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He's using right wing arguments to bolster his imaginary intellectually neutral position.



I you say so.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Presumably you've chosen to ignore the views of Mariane Pearl, another woman of colour.  Convenient for you.


When she 'chose' who was to play her, I wonder what the shortlist looked like that she was asked to choose from.

Or are you suggesting that if she requested the local woman from the bakery that would have been granted?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yeah, because an argument's worth is dictated by weight of numbers.
> 
> The fact that Mation and I disagree about the efficacy of a particular tactic in the fight against racism is not quite the same as me insisting she's wrong.  And, in any event, she accepted my central point (the hypothetical one).
> 
> In your opinion, what are the circumstances in which it is acceptable for a white person to disagree with a person of colour regarding race?


Everyone fucking disagrees with you. On here, at least. Might be different on the daily mail forum.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> When she 'chose' who was to play her, I wonder what the shortlist looked like that she was asked to choose from.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that if she requested the local woman from the bakery that would hace been granted?



I don't know; neither do you.  She is explicit about choosing Jolie, and in countering the arguments about race.  You can ignore what she says, suggest it wasn't true, or speculate as to what might have happened, but it's a completely dishonest way to debate.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Everyone fucking disagrees with you. On here, at least. Might be different on the daily mail forum.



Hur, hur, hur.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> It's not uncommon for me to mix posters up, regardless of race, sex etc..  To suggest otherwise, in order to hint at racism on my part, is a cheap shot. But one which suits the narrative you and others are tying to push.  So there's little else I can say but 'ok'.



Don't even try it! I have been out all evening and not posted on this thread all day. You have been speaking to Mation, not me, but mix us up and now seek to justify that by accusing me of things I haven't yet said? ? Fuck off, you are not clever enough for this shit.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Don't even try it! I have been out all evening and not posted on this thread all day. You have been speaking to Mation, not me, but mix us up and now seek to justify that by accusing me of things I haven't yet said? ? Fuck off.



Ok.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

FNG said:


> What's with this people of color shit anyways might as well call us coloureds and be done with it,


That term was introduced into the topic by POCs.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That term was introduced into the topic by POCs.



It may have been me, actually. I am a POC.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> It may have been me, actually. I am a POC.



 I think it was you.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Weird how I raised this a few years ago and no one gave a shit. The only response mentions youknowwho.
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/browning-up.262336/


In which case I'm surprised that the second or third post on this one wasn't yer man popping up with his roll eyes and a link to the previous thread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Who? Oh, duur. Pogo


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

So I continued with it. Big ole racist that I am.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Bonfirelight said:


> In which case I'm surprised that the second or third post on this one wasn't yer man popping up with his roll eyes and a link to the previous thread.



Tbf, yer man's MO is 'this has been discussed, at length, many times...' Which doesn't really describe that previous thread.

However, he may be along to remind us of other occasions...


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

Do you self identify as POC,or person of colour or do you just use it as forum shorthand, I ve used POC on here when discussing Johnny spieght with niño as a reference point for our perspectives, but on a day to day basis I'm more comfortable with dual heritage Anglo/Asian.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That term was introduced into the topic by POCs.



It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Tbf, yer man's MO is 'this has been discussed, at length, many times...' Which doesn't really describe that previous thread.


(((Previous thread, even pogo doesn't care about you)))


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So I continued with it. Big ole racist that I am.



 Think it takes on a whole different connotation when it's written long hand though my racist brother.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

I identify as Rutita, RM, mixed x and y.., we all know what people are saying when using POC...another detour to discuss that IMO.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey.



Perhaps so. But easier than getting all down nitty gritty into all the various races and cultures that it so easily could have slipped into. Oh hang on, it did anyway...


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

poptyping said:


> You fucked up, kid.



Yes, I momentarily confused the names of two posters who had been making similar arguments, immediately after re-reading a post by one which referred to the other (because I was going to quote it).  I noticed the mistake myself, corrected it, and apologised.  None of that's evidence of what you're trying to suggest, though.



Mation said:


> We're talking at cross purposes.
> 
> I didn't mention your logical argument to suggest that, in logic, it leads to a world in which black actors aren't marginalised. I'm aware that you realise that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

FNG said:


> Think it takes on a whole different connotation when it's written long hand though my racist brother.



Such is the minefield of referring to people via their appearance rather than name. There was a context to it on this occasion though but yeah, crass under most circumstances.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey.


I agree and wouldn't use it, but kind of don't think its my place to say


----------



## JimW (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Such is the minefield of referring to people via their appearance rather than name. There was a context to it on this occasion though but yeah, crass under most circumstances.


Your main offence was writing POCs as an abbreviation of person*s* of colour


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

PsOC would look well weird though.


----------



## FNG (Nov 7, 2014)

He's bang to rights on that one


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Mation said:


> I'm sure you are. Genuinely.
> 
> It is kind of relevant though, given the dissimilarity between mine and Rutita1's names.



It wasn't that your names are similar; I've explained why I confused you and Rutita1  in post #577.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> It wasn't that your names are similar; I've explained why I confused you both in post #577.



Yet my opinons and Mations are not distinct at all on this thread...Loads of posters are making the same points. I add to that and repeat that I have not been active on this thread all day..yet...you are keeping score in some way...weird.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yet my opinons and Mations are not distinct at all on this thread...Loads of posters are making the same points.



But, as I explained, I had just read a post of Mation's which referred to you. That's why I confused you both.  Nothing else.

I don't really know what else to say; if you're determined to believe that it's some other reason, then you will.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> But, as I explained, I had just read a post of Mation's which referred to you. That's why I confused you both.  Nothing else.
> 
> I don't really know what else to say; if you're determined to believe that it's some other reason, then you will.


Very aggressive and angry aren't they?


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Very aggressive and angry aren't they?



I understand that people are pissed off by some of what I've said.  I wouldn't say anyone's been particularly aggressive, though.


----------



## Mation (Nov 7, 2014)

All plausible. All typical too, though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> *I understand that people are pissed off by some of what I've said.*  I wouldn't say anyone's been particularly aggressive, though.



You do?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Athos said:


> I understand that people are pissed off by some of what I've said.  I wouldn't say anyone's been particularly aggressive, though.


Ok am surprised as your posts in the last few pages seemed to imply that certain people were being confrontational and aggressive. Apologies if I've got that wrong


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You do? Explain that to me please.



People think that the position I took ignores and/or undermines the real-world struggle against racism in Hollywood, and beyond.

If I believed I'd done that, I'd be cross with myself!  But, as it goes, I think that taking a position of moral absolutism on the question of whether it could ever be acceptable for white people to play black roles isn't an effective way to challenge racism (as well as being illogical).  But I accept that others feel differently, and that their opinions are informed by different experiences.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ok am surprised as your posts in the last few pages seemed to imply that certain people were being confrontational and aggressive. Apologies if I've got that wrong



No worries.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say aggressive.  Confrontational, maybe.  But I really don't mind being confronted, or having my ideas challenged.

The only thing that does irritate me is when people try to paint me as something I'm not.  But, even then, it's water off a duck's back, really.  I know who and what I am (and the extent of my anti-racism credentials); I'm big and ugly enough not to be too bothered by jibes from anonymous strangers in cyber-space.

Which I guess is as good a point as any to bow out of this thread.  It's clear that I'm in a very small minority (of one!), and that I've made my point (at length!).  And that, even if I wanted to (which I don't, particularly), I'm not going to change any minds.  So there's little point me banging on - wasting my time and upsetting people.

I do regret that people were upset by what I said; but I don't disavow the principle, and I don't regret sticking to mine.  Furthermore, whilst I appreciate the range of different people's experiences, I strongly reject the notion that the respective identities of the people expressing opinions trumps the content of those opinions.  Something of which I see more and more, which was (at least) hinted at here, and which I consider to be a real threat to the solidarity and efficacy of the left.

No doubt some will see this as an opportunity to take some more cheap swipes, and to have the last word; so be it, I will try not to be goaded into continuing what has become a bit of a car crash!

Night all.

[/mini-flounce]


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 8, 2014)

FNG said:


> Do you self identify as POC,or person of colour or do you just use it as forum shorthand, I ve used POC on here when discussing Johnny spieght with niño as a reference point for our perspectives, but on a day to day basis I'm more comfortable with dual heritage Anglo/Asian.



I use it in writing quite often, partly because it's easier than listing out all the backgrounds of the people who have expressed a similar opinion. Also, for me, because it can help express certain shared experiences and stuff partic wrt racism... My mum describes herself as politically black, as did many poc of her generation, but she is "ethnically brown"... I think it's a difficult one.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey.



How's about we let people decide how they want to refer to themselves, instead of telling them what is and isn't the best type of language to use?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> How's about we let people decide how they want to refer to themselves, instead of telling them what is and isn't the best type of language to use?



Who's telling anyone what language to use? I couldn't give a fuck how people refer to themselves.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Who's telling anyone what language to use? I couldn't give a fuck how people refer to themselves.



_"It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey."_ -- That suggests you don't particularly like the term. That suggests you do give somewhat of a fuck, or it wouldn't have been worth mentioning. That suggests you think there is probably a better term, or one should be found - a term that isn't _clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey_. That suggests that while you are not saying "you are not allowed to use that term" the implication is that you'd be happier if people would use a different one to refer to themselves.

It's clear how your statement suggests all these things, yes?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> _"It's still clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey."_ -- That suggests you don't particularly like the term. That suggests you do give somewhat of a fuck, or it wouldn't have been worth mentioning. That suggests you think there is probably a better term, or one should be found - a term that isn't _clumsy and needlessly navel-gazey_. That suggests that while you are not saying "you are not allowed to use that term" the implication is that you'd be happier if people would use a different one to refer to themselves.



I told you, I couldn't give a fuck how people refer to themselves.

I wouldn't use the term POC because I think it's clumsy and needlessly navel gazey.

Got it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Film4 still needs to make money though. They're not a charity, but I think even they were surprised by its success. I doubt even Hollywood would have got away with having the main characters played by White US or British actors


Macaulay Culkin in the lead role?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Star Trek (Khan is played by the whitest man ever)



If a person is named 'Khan', their skin color must be.....what?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2014)

Santino said:


> In the tv series Tyrant, there's a pair of supposedly half-Arab, half-English brothers. The good brother is played by a white English actor, the bad brother by an Israeli Arab actor.



Someone should be sent to jail.


----------



## FNG (Nov 8, 2014)

poptyping said:


> I use it in writing quite often, partly because it's easier than listing out all the backgrounds of the people who have expressed a similar opinion. Also, for me, because it can help express certain shared experiences and stuff partic wrt racism... My mum describes herself as politically black, as did many poc of her generation, but she is "ethnically brown"... I think it's a difficult one.



Thanks thats the way i read it.

If its not clear i am not taking issue with the Term POC i'm taking issue with people using the term people of colour when talking about racism and then ascribing the same set of values and POV to all black and brown people wrt the issue.When even a cursory glance of this thread would be enough to confirm that the self identified POCs on a politically homogeneous bulletin board can't agree on the price of bread let alone anything else


----------



## FNG (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Perhaps so. But easier than getting all down nitty gritty into all the various races and cultures that it so easily could have slipped into. Oh hang on, it did anyway...



 Cultural baggage does shape the individuals response to something like casting bigotry in religious movies though, say a Muslims response is going to be different to a Rasterfari,an atheists,a Catholics or a Presbyterian say.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Macaulay Culkin in the lead role?


What?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 8, 2014)

FNG said:


> Thanks thats the way i read it.
> 
> If its not clear i am not taking issue with the Term POC i'm taking issue with people using the term people of colour when talking about racism and then ascribing the same set of values and POV to all black and brown people wrt the issue.When even a cursory glance of this thread would be enough to confirm that the self identified POCs on a politically homogeneous bulletin board can't agree on the price of bread let alone anything else



Absolutely, totally agree.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> How's about we let people decide how they want to refer to themselves, instead of telling them what is and isn't the best type of language to use?


We're allowed to express an opinion about it though, eh? POC is a US term as far as I can tell, and it sits awkwardly with me too. Mind you, this thread is a good example of how we in the UK often conflate US issues with UK ones and treat them as if they were the same when they're not, really.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 8, 2014)

I can't speak for Vintage Paw but I think there response may have been partly down to the tone of the other poster. So much of this thread has been dismissing people's lived experience. That post got my hackles up too and I agree with what VP said.

Edited to remove some personal info.


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> PsOC would look well weird though.


*P*eople


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Sweet FA said:


> *P*eople



Good idea. So when I say POC and some twat says 'stop generalising' I'll just claim I meant it in the singular sense and not the plural.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 8, 2014)

Terminology like POC is useful for the reasons already stated.

My main issue with it is that it perpetuates the invisibility of 'Whiteness'.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Terminology like POC is useful for the reasons already stated.
> 
> My main issue with it is that it perpetuates the invisibility of 'Whiteness'.


it also reinforces a binary out of white and other


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> it also reinforces a binary out of white and other


It does, and I'm not trying to have a go or dictate - there aren't good solutions sometimes. But after a quick look at the history of the term, it appears to have first been used by Martin Luther King as an alternative to 'coloured', specifically to refer to those people who would have been directed to the 'colored' toilet in segregated US. Ironically, it is a legacy of the 'one drop rule' in the racist apartheid US. For me, it doesn't map comfortably on to other situations, but I accept all you say, pt, and I can totally see why you say it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Terminology like POC is useful for the reasons already stated.
> 
> My main issue with it is that it perpetuates the invisibility of 'Whiteness'.



No term is without it's flaws tho, I think... Or is there one that you think is a bit better?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 8, 2014)

poptyping said:


> No term is without it's flaws tho, I think... Or is there one that you think is a bit better?


yeah all flawed = because racism is bullshit/there being no such thing as race, it becomes impossible not to talk about it without adding to the bullshit.
------------------------
Since Athos has been talking about challenging moral absolutism Ive been trying to think about this all from a more philosophical/psychological angle.... a lot of it has already been covered, partly im thinking out loud, but still, hope this is of interest:

*if an actor limits themselves to roles that are essentially the ethnicity and accent they are born with there is no taboo-breaking about it - as an example thinking of someone like Ray Winstone playing eastenders - we go along with the characters he plays, theres little sense of offense (apart from maybe any inherent stereotyping written in to the role/s), and at worst you could say it shows he's a limited actor for not being able to take on more stretching roles

*if an actor plays a character of different ethnicity that may require different accents, but the character is still of a similiar enough skin colour then on the whole this is also completely acceptable by the vast majority of viewers, so long as the actor does a good job of it - a bad accent like Don Cheadle in Oceans 11 or a stereotypical performance may create offense, or make a joke of the performance, but its not a taboo-breaking thing to do in and of itself, particularly so if acted well - and if anything we respect the actor for taking on a stretching role.

*playing a character with a different skin colour to that of the actor does move into a taboo breaking area, even though on the face of it we respect actors for stretching themselves as much as possible, particularly so if they can pull it off - in fact an actor might be judged as limited for not taking on such roles. So why is it a taboo to do so? I've got these reasons

-historical: the bad politics associated with such acting in the past, and the racist ideas that feed in to the act - discussed already here so wont add to that.

-boundary transcending: this is an interesting bit of it I think. Part of the ways taboo comes around is having socially-agreed, clear boundaries and taboo-breaking is all about breaking those boundaries. The dressing up and acting out in carnival is often talked about as serving a taboo-breaking function, as is dressing up in drag, and i expect cinema/acting plays a big taboo-breaking function in our society. My point here is that I think there is a taboo at work here, socially constructed, which Athos was making the point that it isnt amoral in and of itself to break - I agree with that.

-I think on a visual level the playing of characters of other skin colours 'looks wrong' (unauthentic), even with the best make-up. I think theres a parallel with drag here - it is only on the rarest occasions that people beleive the costume, and if they don't then that discordance is something that many people, for deep psychological and socially constructed reasons, tend to find unnerving to different degrees.

- leading on from that, a last thought is I think in acting most people value a performance that captures the character authentically  - the more authentic the better the performance. The visual part of that is probably the first layer that we respond to, and the more we know about and are sensitive to what we think the character should be like, the more we might hold the actor to account. For example a Swedish person might hold an Italian-American actor playing someone from Sweden to account more closely than a French-Canadian viewer would, picking up as they would on more subtle differences, and that may include the way the actor physically looks too. Playing a character of a different skin-colour is something everyone picks up on, and so makes it that much more problematic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yeah all flawed = because racism is bullshit/there being no such thing as race, it becomes impossible not to talk about it without adding to the bullshit..


It's difficult to talk about race without using categories that, ultimately, were first defined by racists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> - leading on from that, a last thought is I think in acting most people value a performance that captures the character authentically  - the more authentic the better the performance. The visual part of that is probably the first layer that we respond to, and the more we know about and are sensitive to what we think the character should be like, the more we might hold the actor to account. For example a Swedish person might hold an Italian-American actor playing someone from Sweden to account more closely than a French-Canadian viewer would, picking up as they would on more subtle differences, and that may include the way the actor physically looks too. Playing a character of a different skin-colour is something everyone picks up on, and so makes it that much more problematic.



This reminds me of a post I made on another thread when this topic crashed its way over there. A character in a US tv show I was watching whose parents were Somali refugees, apparently. Yet she did not look Somali in the slightest. Not sure whether this was laziness, ignorance or just indifference on the part of the casting - it struck me as ' we need someone to play an African; she's "African-American" so job done'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This reminds me of a post I made on another thread when this topic crashed its way over there. A character in a US tv show I was watching whose parents were Somali refugees, apparently. Yet she did not look Somali in the slightest. Not sure whether this was laziness, ignorance or just indifference on the part of the casting - it struck me as ' we need someone to play an African; she's "African-American" so job done'.


One of my aunts is Ethiopian, she is always being mistaken for West Indian by people from the West Indies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Actually I might be wrong here. 

They might have been refugees from the Bantu minority.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> One of my aunts is Ethiopian, she is always being mistaken for West Indian by people from the West Indies.



I think that's a much more plausible error than the case LBJ mentions though (that's not to say that an African-American can't look Somali, but most don't). 
I'd say that particular case is more likely ignorance than anything else - I think a lot of people in American see 'black' as one race, but if you want to slice things up genetically* and wind up with a decent handful of races most will be black and unless you get into fairly high numbers you basically have races of black people and one other race that comprises Caucasians, Asians, everyone else.

(this is just using a genetic divergence idea of 'race')


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think that's a much more plausible error than the case LBJ mentions though (that's not to say that an African-American can't look Somali, but most don't).
> I'd say that particular case is more likely ignorance than anything else - I think a lot of people in American see 'black' as one race, but if you want to slice things up genetically* and wind up with a decent handful of races most will be black and unless you get into fairly high numbers you basically have races of black people and one other race that comprises Caucasians, Asians, everyone else.
> 
> (this is just using a genetic divergence idea of 'race')


I think I have to eat my words here, tbf. Looking into it, since 1999, people from the persecuted Bantu minority in Somalia have been given preferential refugee status in the US. 

Think I got this wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

You are a very naughty boy.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 8, 2014)

Someone pretty much explained my position earlier in the thread.

I believe in some woolly notion of 'artistic integrity' and 'artistic freedom' -- whatever those things are. I think roles should be open to all, and the best person for the job should get the job. I also think that casting people who don't necessarily 'match' the skin colour, gender, sexuality or able-bodiedness of the character can be a transgressive and subversive act, and be a good thing.

'Best person' is a difficult notion though. What attributes and context do we exclude while including others? If a film is calling for some amount of verisimilitude, it could be argued that casting people who already match in some way certain attributes of a character is the 'best'. That would be why someone rather bulky and tall with a thick neck and broad chest might be cast to play a bouncer. For example. Of course, the casting director might be helping to perpetuate stereotypes by doing this. There is no concrete rule that can be put in place, because there is so much nuance involved.

But that aside, we don't live in a world free from context. The film used as the example by the OP doesn't exist in a vacuum. It isn't just one film where the lead have been 'whitewashed'. Hollywood has a long history of erasing the skin colour, ethnicity, and culture of the people it tells stories about - and it would be very difficult to argue that in every case it has been purely about artistic integrity. It would be very difficult to argue that they represent a history of Hollywood being transgressive and subversive in the sense of those things being progressive. This case in the OP feels particularly egregious to me because the lead are whitewashed, and those who play slaves and servants and people of far lower social standing are often brown. This is happening in the context of a Hollywood that whitewashes routinely, a Hollywood that stereotypes when certain ethnicities are depicted, a Hollywood that casts 'white' as 'good' and 'black/brown' as 'bad', and a world where whites have historically been in charge, and PoC generally haven't, and have been in turn either owned by them or subjugated by their systems. We cannot divorce any one film from its wider social and cultural context. Whitewashing the lead of this film is different to casting Idris Elba in _Thor_. I would also argue that browning or blacking up is different to a PoC applying makeup to appear white (outside of film, blacking up has historically been a way to mock PoC because they are somehow lesser; historically PoC doing things to appear white has been a way of attempting to pass, which is also a symptom of a society that has told them they are lesser) -- and in both cases the context would matter considerably.

An ideal world, a world free from contexts like this, would see us able to have all types of people in all types of role if that's what the director wanted to do. But this isn't an ideal world.

Karen has 3 apples. Susan has none.
It is agreed that Karen and Susan should be treated equally, because in the past they haven't been.
Both Karen and Susan are given 3 apples each.
Yay, equal treatment.
Oh, wait. Now Karen has 6 apples, and Susan has 3.

We are not starting this debate from a place where white actors and black, brown, asian etc. actors all have 3 apples each.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

I don't think Karen really likes apples.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't think Karen really likes apples.





Maybe she's just not that hungry right now because she's always been able to have her fill of apples.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

Maybe her teeth are rotten


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Maybe her teeth are rotten



From eating nothing but sugary fruit her whole life.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 8, 2014)

everyone knows black people only eat mangoes and bananas anyway


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2014)

poptyping said:


> No term is without it's flaws tho, I think... Or is there one that you think is a bit better?



Sorry I missed this yesterday!

As you said, no term is without it's flaws so no, nothing better springs to mind in that sense. It's the catch-all aspect of it that makes it problematic and as pointed out that it reinforces the idea that Whiteness is invisible.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Sorry I missed this yesterday!
> 
> As you said, no term is without it's flaws so no, nothing better springs to mind in that sense. It's the catch-all aspect of it that makes it problematic and as pointed out that it reinforces the idea that Whiteness is invisible.



Not just invisible surely but the default?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not just invisible surely but the default?



Yes. That too!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 9, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If a person is named 'Khan', their skin color must be.....what?



The character is called 'Khan Noonien Singh' which is just an amalgam of the most interesting-sounding names the writer found among members of the Star Trek production crew at the time IIRC. Originally he was played by a Mexican actor.

e2a: Khan was named after an old war buddy of Gene Roddenberry:



> By the final draft, Khan is Indian; a character guesses that Khan is from Northern India, and "probably a Sikh."[15] Khan's full name was based on that of Kim Noonien Singh, a pilot Gene Roddenbery served with during the Second World War. Roddenbery lost touch with his friend and had hoped that Khan's similar name might attract his attention and renew his old acquaintance.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 9, 2014)

Rutita1 can you explain a bit more about whiteness being invisible. Not trying to challenge I'm just not sure I get you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2014)

What I mean is that Whiteness becomes the default to 'otherness' so the conversation is rarely about what it means to be White, how White people are etc.

Whiteness is not examined or named/labelled in the same way Blackness/otherness is. The focus is Black/Brown/other people are x, y, z, on perceived, generalised difference, which in itself implies anything un-named as White because the gaze is 'White'. It creates absolute positions and representations.

Prevalent/institutionalised/accepted/internalised, yet for the most part unexamined and deconstructed by many.

Already in bed so not a full response. Hope it makes sense and maybe I can get back to this tomorrow.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> What I mean is that Whiteness becomes the default to 'otherness' so the conversation is rarely about what it means to be White, how White people are etc.
> 
> Whiteness is not examined or named/labelled in the same way Blackness/otherness is. The focus is Black/Brown/other people are x, y, z, on perceived, generalised difference, which in itself implies anything un-named as White because the gaze is 'White'. It creates absolute positions and representations.
> 
> ...



It's the same thing with saying 'female doctor', etc. Male is default. White is default. Straight is default. Able-bodied is default. None of them require prefacing with a descriptor because they are assumed to be the 'norm' and anything that isn't one of those things needs an explanation.

Edit: I don't know if anyone's read it, but _Erasure_ by Percival Everett is a very interesting novel that covers a lot of these issues with an emphasis on being African American.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's the same thing with saying 'female doctor', etc. Male is default. White is default. Straight is default. Able-bodied is default. None of them require prefacing with a descriptor because they are assumed to be the 'norm' and anything that isn't one of those things needs an explanation.



Yes it is. I was being specific because I was asked to be.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes it is. I was being specific because I was asked to be.



Oh, I know. I was just expanding on it. Sorry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Oh, I know. I was just expanding on it. Sorry.


No need to be sorry!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 9, 2014)

Thanks both... I get what you mean now but I'm not getting why POC as a phrase has an impact. Again not challenging but really interested in your views on this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Thanks both... I get what you mean now but I'm not getting why POC as a phrase has an impact. Again not challenging but really interested in your views on this.



...in short because _White_ is a colour too. The term POC doesn't include Whiteness, therefore the 'gaze' is generalised and by default White even if we are using it as a unifier/to talk about our collective experiences of racism.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

How about the best man/woman for the job, regardless of colour...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2014)

A question you could be asking of hollywood directors/producers/casting departments.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> A question you could be asking of hollywood directors/producers/casting departments.


Why does someone have to be white or black to play the role of a white or black person? How racist is that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Why does someone have to be white or black to play the role of a white or black person? How racist is that?



We are on page 22 of this same discussion. Read the thread?


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

TL;DR

 No one gives a shit about Prince of Persia

 And Ghandis real name was Ben Kingsly


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> We are on page 22 of this same discussion. Read the thread?


I read the thread title and asked myself... "Did I throw a wobbler when Brad Pitt played a piss-poor pikey in Snatch"... No, I didn't... what's the problem with anyone of any race playing the part of anyone from any race?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2014)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> View attachment 63591


If that was aimed at me, could you please point out where I went wrong?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I read the thread title and asked myself... "Did I throw a wobbler when Brad Pitt played a piss-poor pikey in Snatch"... No, I didn't... what's the problem with anyone of any race playing the part of anyone from any race?



Yul Brynner made a great King of Siam too.....


----------



## Garek (Nov 10, 2014)

Not just white people who get made darker. See the huge controversy surrounding Zoe Saldana playing Nina Simone, with make-up to 'Africanise' her.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2014)

Zoe Saldana is forever getting painted different colours isn't she?

e2a: I've seen some of the photos of her made up as Simone, and it's the kind of work you'd expect to see in a community theatre pantomime.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I read the thread title and asked myself... "Did I throw a wobbler when Brad Pitt played a piss-poor pikey in Snatch"... No, I didn't... what's the problem with anyone of any race playing the part of anyone from any race?


It was rather an offensive portrayal of an Irish traveller. The whole film demonises travellers, with the hero of the film repeatedly saying how much he 'hates fucking pikeys'.
Guy Ritchie should have been pitchforked for it.


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

Not familiar with the film  Is this a fair representation of attempts to "africanise" Zoe?


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

this surely has to be a pisstake


----------



## Crispy (Nov 10, 2014)

omg that's just embarrassing


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

On the balance of evidence i think i agree with Nina Simones daughters point that Kimberly Elise would have portrayed her mother better without the need for cheap prosthetics and a comedy wig




http://www.music-news.com/ShowNews.asp?nItemID=58986


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 10, 2014)

But but but, I bet Saldana was literally the BEST actor for the job, so how dare you suggest she shouldn't have played that part.

Etc.


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

ironically Nina Simone always felt her career was held back and that she failed to get the critical acolades her talent deserved because she refused to use skin bleaching creams prevalent in the show business industry


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> ...in short because _White_ is a colour too. The term POC doesn't include Whiteness, therefore the 'gaze' is generalised and by default White even if we are using it as a unifier/to talk about our collective experiences of racism.



Thanks for this. None of it's simple, eh. I hadn't thought of it in this way before.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Rutita1 can you explain a bit more about whiteness being invisible. Not trying to challenge I'm just not sure I get you.



White people are hard to see in foggy conditions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2014)

FNG said:


> ironically Nina Simone always felt her career was held back and that she failed to get the critical acolades her talent deserved because she refused to use skin bleaching creams prevalent in the show business industry




Indeed. This is clearly a case where someone's life, and therefore any story you might want to tell about that person, has been profoundly affected by the colour of their skin. To do justice to both the story and the subject of that story you'd need to cast someone who looks the part.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2014)

FNG said:


> this surely has to be a pisstake



It's a real car crash isn't it? Looks like they've changed her lips and nose as well as her skin colour


----------



## story (Nov 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> What I mean is that Whiteness becomes the default to 'otherness' so the conversation is rarely about what it means to be White, how White people are etc.
> 
> Whiteness is not examined or named/labelled in the same way Blackness/otherness is. The focus is Black/Brown/other people are x, y, z, on perceived, generalised difference, which in itself implies anything un-named as White because the gaze is 'White'. It creates absolute positions and representations.
> 
> ...





poptyping said:


> Thanks for this. None of it's simple, eh. I hadn't thought of it in this way before.




I've actually struggled to find a shape for this idea over the years.

I look white, sometimes I'm told I look Spanish or Italian, but I have Arab blood and when, for a period of time, I had a Syrian friend we were often mistaken for siblings.

I suppose I am white, but I'm a quarter Arabic, so I suppose I'm not really "white".

To be honest, I'm not even sure how to think/talk about this; it really feels like a non-issue in some ways (perhaps because I mostly look white European), but very important in other ways.

When I have to tick the box on forms, I hover between mixed and white, but then I tick white, because I'm not sure how to own my Arab blood as a person who appears to be white.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2014)

There should be a Ginger option on those forms


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

its what you most feel comfortable with, if its not an issue for you to tick the box its no one elses business


----------



## FNG (Nov 10, 2014)

at story obvs


----------



## story (Nov 10, 2014)

FNG said:


> its what you most feel comfortable with, if its not an issue for you to tick the box its no one elses business



Well yes, obviously this is true. And sometimes I do tick the mixed box.

My point was that this is the first time I've ever had the space or shape to form the question or talk about it.

I'm not trying to claim some kind of oppression, but this question around whiteness being a default setting and therefore not open to nuances or definition is interesting to me, exactly because I'm not 100% white although I look white.

ETA And since the forms are personal and confidential, it's never been something I've ever discussed. Given that I'm almost always assumed to be white, it seems so trivial and self-absorbed to want to talk about it. So I'm interested to see it raised here on this thread. That's all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> There should be a Ginger option on those forms


You should write it in


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> But but but, I bet Saldana was literally the BEST actor for the job, so how dare you suggest she shouldn't have played that part.
> 
> Etc.



Choosing an actor isn't the same process as finding the best bus driver or the best neurosurgeon. There are objective criteria for those.

An actor is chosen at least in part because the actor will best conform to the writer and/or director's vision of how the character should be portrayed. A film is a creative piece, and a determination of what elements will best enhance the creative piece will be subjective to the directing minds.

Choosing actors is like choosing tints in a landscape painting - it's possible to argue after the fact whether or not the painter should have employed different tints - but the painter chose to express herself in the manner that ultimately appears on the canvas.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2014)

It's a bit early for this nonsense, isn't it Johnny?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2014)

story said:


> ETA And since the forms are personal and confidential, it's never been something I've ever discussed. Given that I'm almost always assumed to be white, it seems so trivial and self-absorbed to want to talk about it. So I'm interested to see it raised here on this thread. That's all.



It's a very personal thing IME, self-identifying that is. I am interested to know why you believe it trivial though, is it only because people assume you are? 

There are many experiences of 'whiteness' which is one reason why I think it's problematic to perpetuate a _universal_ by not talking about it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 12, 2014)

story said:


> My point was that this is the first time I've ever had the space or shape to form the question or talk about it.



If you were in fact non-white, it's an issue that you would have thought about on a regular basis, all of your life.


----------



## FNG (Nov 12, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Choosing an actor isn't the same process as finding the best bus driver or the best neurosurgeon. There are objective criteria for those.
> 
> An actor is chosen at least in part because the actor will best conform to the writer and/or director's vision of how the character should be portrayed. A film is a creative piece, and a determination of what elements will best enhance the creative piece will be subjective to the directing minds.
> 
> Choosing actors is like choosing tints in a landscape painting - it's possible to argue after the fact whether or not the painter should have employed different tints - but the painter chose to express herself in the manner that ultimately appears on the canvas.




Yew troshing?

the  entertainment industry and the fashion industry promote and perpetuate the myth that lighter skin equals beauty,talent and box office appeal.
 By constantly giving the best parts to the lightest actors even if it subsequently means darking their skin tones or in the case of Zoe Salmanac the wearing of awkward prostetics, you maintain the status quo,it ensures that fewer darker skined actors break through to become box office success in their own right.

 Its not just a US thing though the same issues are rife in  Bollywood too
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/11/07/being-a-darker-shade-of-pale-in-bollywood/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 12, 2014)

Then we should applaud the growing popularity of Nollywood films.


----------



## FNG (Nov 12, 2014)

good idea got any to promote?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

Sophia in London is quite funny in a Crocodile Dundee kind of way.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

Apart from that, most Nigerian films I've seen seem to centre around a family argument.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2014)

Linda Hunt did the triple as Billy Kwan in The Year Of Living Dangerously. An American actress playing a male Indonesian dwarf. She won an Oscar for it n all.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2014)

story said:


> When I have to tick the box on forms, I hover between mixed and white, but then I tick white, because I'm not sure how to own my Arab blood as a person who appears to be white.



I'm a quarter black and I always tick white - seems easiest to go with the majority.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2014)

I don't know if this is of interest at all: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/post/102462986268/rzzmg-via-saladin-ahmed-im-sorry-but-this

A bunch of statistics about diversity in various types of media.

For example:


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2014)

"Of the 8 protagonists of colour, 6 are Will Smith"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2014)

So really we should just be mad at Will Smith for hogging all the black characters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2014)

If Will Smith weren't a bankable star, there would be even fewer black characters. That's kind of the point - they're not really 'black characters', particularly in sci-fi. They're mostly characters whose race is not important, and where a character's race is not important, they're nearly always cast as white.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2014)

I'm sure all those white people were just the right people for the job. And I'm sure where roles are written with a specific skin colour in mind it's just because it's totally integral to the story that the protagonist be that colour - namely white in the majority of cases.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2014)

I have just been reminded of this story:
http://gawker.com/straight-outta-co...ton-casting-call-is-racist-as-hell-1606524197


----------



## ska invita (Nov 13, 2014)

story said:


> Well yes, obviously this is true. And sometimes I do tick the mixed box.


is there a mixed box? never seen that. mixed lol. we're all mixed. 
those forms are purely for stats for whoever it might be to get a feeling of the ethnicities of whoever is using their service - it is not a selection of hard categories to self identity by - everyones heritage is far more complex than that, and at the same time more communal


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't know if this is of interest at all: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/post/102462986268/rzzmg-via-saladin-ahmed-im-sorry-but-this
> 
> A bunch of statistics about diversity in various types of media.
> 
> For example:


tbh i would be interested in the ethnick make-up of the people seeing these pictures in the cinema


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> is there a mixed box? never seen that. mixed lol. we're all mixed.
> those forms are purely for stats for whoever it might be to get a feeling of the ethnicities of whoever is using their service - it is not a selection of hard categories to self identity by - everyones heritage is far more complex than that, and at the same time more communal



I remember the time in my life when I could finally tick a box for most forms, before that I was simply other.

I know what you are saying about us all being mixed but you are not mixed in the way I am and I like being able to _officially_ reflect my ethnic heritage/identity in the way I now can but couldn't previously. There's no LOL about that btw, there are some seriously personal considerations there. I know many other Mixed heritage people feel the same way too.

Having the opportunity for our different mixes to be acknowledged in this way is also a massive two fingers up to the 'one drop rule' ...which is never a bad thing IMO.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 13, 2014)

ah thanks ruti i see what you're saying
we should all identify as mixed though is my point - to not do so is to reinforce ideas of race and racial cateogires (theres no such thing) and therefore racism

*i can see a value in box ticking out a form if it helps discrimination in the long run though


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If Will Smith weren't a bankable star, there would be even fewer black characters. That's kind of the point - they're not really 'black characters', particularly in sci-fi. They're mostly characters whose race is not important, and where a character's race is not important, they're nearly always cast as white.



Now that you mention it I can think of a couple of remakes where WIll Smith has starred in a role originally played by a white actor.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> *i can see a value in box ticking out a form if it helps discrimination in the long run though


Yeah, for practical reasons of monitoring things, it's useful at the moment. The alternative is what you have in France, where it is illegal to ask someone about their race, but where racist discrimination most certainly still goes on and nothing is done at govt level to stop it.

What we don't have here, though, and I am very glad we don't, is any legal status to race. We are not legally any race, and we can legally self-identify as any race we like on forms (and also legally refuse to complete them). We're still able to have proactive anti-discrimination laws, but any idea that we might 'officially' be designated some race or another is highly questionable.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ah thanks ruti i see what you're saying
> we should all identify as mixed though is my point - to not do so is to reinforce ideas of race and racial cateogires (theres no such thing) and therefore racism



'Mixed' is sometimes subdivided on the forms into black and white British, black and white Irish etc to make sure nobody is able to avoid being put in some kind of category or other.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Mixed' is sometimes subdivided on the forms into black and white British, black and white Irish etc to make sure nobody is able to avoid being put in some kind of category or other.


You can avoid it by leaving that question blank. It's self-identifying, too. The police have to record ethnicity in their business with people (rightly so, imo), but they have to record what the people themselves say they are, not what they (the police) think they are (also rightly so, imo).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

Really good article here on Charles Mills talking about why the 'ideal' approach to thinking about justice is flawed

http://www.demos.org/blog/11/20/14/charles-mills-white-liberalism


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Choosing an actor isn't the same process as finding the best bus driver or the best neurosurgeon. There are objective criteria for those.
> 
> An actor is chosen at least in part because the actor will best conform to the writer and/or director's vision of how the character should be portrayed. A film is a creative piece, and a determination of what elements will best enhance the creative piece will be subjective to the directing minds.
> 
> Choosing actors is like choosing tints in a landscape painting - it's possible to argue after the fact whether or not the painter should have employed different tints - but the painter chose to express herself in the manner that ultimately appears on the canvas.



_"You know, dammit John!! - This is the best goddarned script I've seen since '_The Nativity 3 - Dude, Where's My Donkey'_, and my ass is quite literally on the line, but whatever central casting are saying, we're not having that Ejiofor idiot come in and screw this up - the writer, creative director and me ALL agree it's a blacked-up Jason Statham or nothing!!"  _


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Really good article here on Charles Mills talking about why the 'ideal' approach to thinking about justice is flawed
> 
> http://www.demos.org/blog/11/20/14/charles-mills-white-liberalism



That has to be the most long-winded, Pseud's Corner way of saying "we're not starting from scratch" that I've ever seen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Really good article here on Charles Mills talking about why the 'ideal' approach to thinking about justice is flawed
> 
> http://www.demos.org/blog/11/20/14/charles-mills-white-liberalism


I would think that argument works really quite well for somewhere like the UK if you substitute 'working class' for 'black'. Privilege reproduces itself generation upon generation. Perfectly equal civil rights barely dent that.

For me, the word missing from this kind of debate in the US – the elephant in the room – is _socialism_.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> That has to be the most long-winded, Pseud's Corner way of saying "we're not starting from scratch" that I've ever seen.



Yeah the kind of thing that several people in this thread have said in 4 lines or less, but it's the sort of the argument the philosopher idiots demand


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 28, 2014)

*Egypt bans 'inaccurate' Exodus film*



> Egypt has banned a Hollywood film based on the Biblical book of Exodus because of what censors described as "historical inaccuracies".
> 
> The head of the censorship board said these included the film's depiction of Jews as having built the Pyramids, and that an earthquake, not a miracle by Moses, caused the Red Sea to part.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30605059


----------



## ska invita (Dec 28, 2014)

FNG said:


> No one gives a shit about Prince of Persia
> 
> And Ghandis real name was Ben Kingsly


 
i watched prince of persia over xmas - ben kingsley is in it - coincidence?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 28, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Egypt has banned a Hollywood film based on the Biblical book of Exodus because of what censors described as "historical inaccuracies".
> The head of the censorship board said these included the film's depiction of Jews as having built the Pyramids, and that an earthquake, not a miracle by Moses, caused the Red Sea to part.


has anyone seen it? 
Slaves built the pyramids -id imagine that included Jews

and an earthquake is legally an act of god so....


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> has anyone seen it?
> Slaves built the pyramids -id imagine that included Jews
> 
> and an earthquake is legally an act of god so....


The pyramids were built about 1000 years before Moses


----------



## ska invita (Dec 28, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> The pyramids were built about 1000 years before Moses


is that whats being disputed? The timing of the pyramid building?


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> is that whats being disputed? The timing of the pyramid building?


That's part of the "historical inaccuracies".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> has anyone seen it?
> Slaves built the pyramids -id imagine that included Jews
> 
> and an earthquake is legally an act of god so....


Wage labourers largely built the pyramids. Among the first in history - as their anti-boss graffiti and strike record (first ever recorded) attests.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wage labourers largely built the pyramids. Among the first in history - as their anti-boss graffiti and strike record (first ever recorded) attests.


is that so! bastard hollywood tricked me on that one.

one quick google comes up with this:

"We also know quite a lot about the labor force that built the pyramids. The best estimates are that 10,000 men spent 30 years building the Great Pyramid. They lived in good housing at the foot of the pyramid, and when they died, they received honored burials in stone tombs near the pyramid in thanks for their contribution. This information is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was only discovered in 1990. They ate well and received the best medical care. And, also unlike slaves, they were well paid.

The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and worked shifts of three months (including farmers who worked during the months when the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the pharaoh's wealth out to where it was needed most. Each day, 21 cattle and 23 sheep were slaughtered to feed the workers, enough for each man to eat meat at least weekly. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has shown us rules out the use of slave labor on the pyramids.

It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt, and they were neither Hebrews nor Israelites. They were a garrison of soldiers from the Persian Empire, stationed on Elephantine, an island in the Nile, beginning in about 650 BCE. They fought alongside the Pharaoh's soldiers in the Nubian campaign, and later became the principal trade portal between Egypt and Nubia. Their history is known from the Elephantine Papyri discovered in 1903, which are in Aramaic, not Hebrew; and their religious beliefs appear to have been a mixture of Judaism and pagan polytheism. Archival records recovered include proof that they observed Shabbat and Passover, and also records of interfaith marriages. In perhaps the strangest reversal from pop pseudohistory, the papyri include evidence that at least some of the Jewish settlers at Elephantine owned Egyptian slaves.

Other documentation also identifies the Elephantine garrison as the earliest immigration of Jews into Egypt. The Letter of Aristeas, written in Greece in the second century BCE, records that Jews had been sent into Egypt to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his campaign against the Nubians. Psammetichus I ruled Egypt from 664 to 610 BCE, which perfectly matches the archaeological dating of the Elephantine garrison in 650.
"
goes on http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Dec 29, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't know if this is of interest at all: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/post/102462986268/rzzmg-via-saladin-ahmed-im-sorry-but-this
> 
> A bunch of statistics about diversity in various types of media.
> 
> For example:



100 top grossing sci-fi films in 2014 or of all time?

Protagonist with a disability in the film, or an actor with an actual disability?


----------



## stuff_it (Dec 29, 2014)

Afaics it's acceptable in Buckinghamshire.


----------



## Maltin (Dec 29, 2014)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> 100 top grossing sci-fi films in 2014 or of all time?
> 
> Protagonist with a disability in the film, or an actor with an actual disability?


If I were to guess, it would be of all time as there is unlikely to be 100 sci-if films released in 2014. I would also guess that the disability is acted, perhaps the lead actor in Avatar who starts off in a wheelchair.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2014)

Harry Enfield did it on the telly a couple of nights ago.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Dec 29, 2014)

Maltin said:


> If I were to guess, it would be of all time as there is unlikely to be 100 sci-if films released in 2014. I would also guess that the disability is acted, perhaps the lead actor in Avatar who starts off in a wheelchair.



What about the X-Men movies? They mustn't be counting Charles Xavier as the protagonist, but come on, he's the leader of the good guys!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

in typical sf fantasy/style the disabled xavier has magic powers that make his disability almost irrelevant


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 21, 2015)

Just seen a rare instance of blacking up in an American tv series, ep 9 season 9 of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, in which Mac and Dee play Murtaugh and his daughter in Lethal Weapon 6. The characters are _supposed _to be crass, insensitive, offensive and just all round awful people though.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 4, 2017)

Looks like dear Apu is coming in for negative attention. There's been a documentary made about him being a negative stereotype.

I have mixed feelings, whilst I can definitely see their point, he's such a sweet loveable character. I can't say I'd be too upset if they got rid of him, as I haven't watched new Simpsons for years.
It will definitely be interesting to see what they do, as no one wants to be branded racist. However, if they removed the comical stereotypes from the Simpsons they'd have to lose a few other characters. Cletus and his family would be history


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.


Plus also he's quite a nuanced character with a backstory and personal problems and definite character traits. 
When they came to London they portrayed Englishmen as repressed homosexuals with bad teeth


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

D'wards said:


> they portrayed Englishmen as repressed homosexuals with bad teeth



Really?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Surely the skin colour of the actors in biblical epics won’t be the most racist aspect


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.


but if you watched the trailer, it's a problem to some of the people it's stereotyping, and they should be listened to, not dismissed.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> but if you watched the trailer, it's a problem to some of the people it's stereotyping, and they should be listened to, not dismissed.



I did watch the trailer. Who’s dismissing them?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I did watch the trailer. Who’s dismissing them?


anyone who listens to the many voices criticising the use of such a stereotype, and just says 'surely blah blah blah'


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> anyone who listens to the many voices criticising the use of such a stereotype, and just says 'surely blah blah blah'



Lol


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> anyone who listens to the many voices criticising the use of such a stereotype, and just says 'surely blah blah blah'



Do you think Apu is a commentary on stereotypes or simply poking fun at Brown people? Or Krusty? Or Cletus?  Or pretty much every other character in Simpson’s?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think Apu is a commentary on stereotypes or simply poking fun at Brown people?


Probably both, not sure about the others. The film doesn't seem to examine the other stereotypes


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Probably both, not sure about the others.



Based on?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Based on?


??
My own watching of the Simpsons and what other people who are better qualified to comment have said about it.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> ??
> My own watching of the Simpsons and what other people who are better qualified to comment have said about it.



That’s thought through


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> That’s thought through


it is, actually. i've been watching it for a long time.
but it doesn't matter what i think. i look forward to watching the film in full.


----------



## Santino (Dec 5, 2017)

Ironic racism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.



That's the standard defence with stereotype chracters in satirical shows but there have been many moments where Apu's culture and background are the butt of the joke, with no nuance or attempt to invert expectations.

There are some wonderful Apu-centric episodes but they're the ones that focus on him as a person and downplay the stereotype angle. And Apu is one of the only non-white Simpsons characters who actually gets his own storylines.


----------



## bimble (Dec 5, 2017)

Is it antisemitic that Krusty is a moneygrubbing crap-endoring shifty old clown with a weird complex about his dad the Stetl rabbi? I don't think so.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 5, 2017)

I think the sheer scope of stereotypes in Simpsons points to steferotypes themselves being a focus of humour.


----------



## bimble (Dec 5, 2017)

Everyone in the Simpsons is a stereotype ffs, that's the whole funniness of it. I'm part Lisa part Selma, i think.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 5, 2017)

I work in a nursery. I’m keen to ‘extend the children’s learning’. This often results in farce. See below.


----------

