Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[Ms Blue Jay]

http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-depressing-montage-white-actors-non-white-ro-231504

 

Here’s a depressing montage of white actors in non-white roles

 

By Caroline Siede @carolinesiede Jan 29, 2016  5:40 PM

 

 

Also, just as a personal aside, I'm never going to get behind Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt's reasoning for having Jane Krakowski play a Native American woman.  You can say "You just don't get the joke" at me until you're blue in the face.  Or "jokes shouldn't have to be explained, because I'm Tina Fey."  Or, well "Jane Krakowski is just so talented, and there aren't really any Native actors" (yes, I've heard all of this shit.)  I really don't want to hear it anymore.

 

This reminds me of that movie "21", about a bunch of Asian students from M.I.T. who ripped off the Vegas casinos.  And who suddenly became white by the time their story was adapted to Hollywood film.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Rick Kitchen]

What was wrong with Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra?  Cleopatra was the result of many generations of Macedonian Greeks.

[Bastet]

I think it's interesting that montage doesn't include any of Myrna Loy's various "exotic" roles during the early years of her career.  Oversight, respect for the fact she spoke back then - and even more loudly later - about the ridiculousness of it, or just the sad fact there are a whole lot of examples to choose from (especially from that era)?

 

I love the compilation of Jesus after Jesus.  And showing that the Fu Manchu depictions didn't get any better from to '32 to '65.

[Ms Blue Jay]

What was wrong with Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra?  Cleopatra was the result of many generations of Macedonian Greeks.

 

That's what you take away from that video?  I guess this is what YMMV is supposed to be all about.

[Rick Kitchen]

That's what you take away from that video?  I guess this is what YMMV is supposed to be all about.

 

No, that is not what I take away from that video.  I asked a question.

[BatmanBeatles]

I just can't get over John Wayne as Genghis Khan.

[SeanC]

I just can't get over John Wayne as Genghis Khan.

That was, rather bizarrely, a passion project for Wayne.  He really wanted to play that role, for reasons pretty much nobody understood.

[Danny Franks]

I can't speak to whether white men are jealous of Idris Elba, but I watched Beasts of No Nation (somehow I stayed awake) and thought his performance was one-note and lackluster, certainly not worthy of an award -- unless of course they're giving awards out for British black guys playing African black guys.  I know the movie was supposed to be "important" but it wasn't very engaging.    Also, in the movie, Elba played a pedophile.  Who knows, maybe that had something to do with the lack of recognition. 

 

I find Elba one-note and lacklustre in everything I've seen him in. The tall and handsome bit I get, the acting talent, I do not. One thing I think is being overlooked here is the likely prejudice Oscar voters will have against a new media platform like Netflix. I may have missed it, but I've not seen anyone suggest this as a possible contributing factor to it being snubbed. 'A movie that's released online? A movie that people didn't queue up to see in a cinema? What nonsense is this?' Also, as has been stated, most of them probably had no intention of watching a movie about child soldiers in Africa anyway.

 

In regards to whitewashing movies, the depressing explanation is that it sells. We can blame Hollywood and producers all we like, but when audiences have shown they're more prepared to pay money for a movie when it stars a white guy, what can you do? That's the name of the game, after all. If you don't make money, you don't last long in the movie business. 

 

Black people can only be in movies about gangs, slaves or Tyler Perry. Women can't headline action movies. Asian and Latino people can only be supporting players. None of this should be true, but audiences have demonstrated that, too often, it is. You need to get into cultural norms and the history of your society to find the explanation, and it's not an elusive one. Non-white people were second class citizens in every way until the 1960s, it can hardly be a surprise that a lot of people still see them that way.

[blixie]

I will say that Soulman at least was about how totally wrong blackface is and a decent critique and portrayal of white privilege for the 80's anyway.

[Perfect Xero]

Oh, I wasn't arguing that Stallone was undeserving, I was arguing that the rest of the movie around his performance wasn't unworthy of consideration. When Stallone is in a great movie he can rise to the occasion (and given that he was also the writer, I'd attribute Rocky's greatness primarily to him). He just tends not to elevate the material when he's in a bad movie the way that, say, Michael Caine does.

 

I think that Stallone's nomination here is as more about the fact that he's almost 70 and has never won an Oscar for acting, so they're giving him a nomination because, well, who knows how much time he has left. This is basically a lifetime achievement award.

 

If Sly was 50 and everyone was pretty confident that he had a lot of career left in front of him, I doubt that he'd be getting a nomination for this role because a Rocky sequel just isn't the sort of thing that's normally going to pass the snob test to get consideration, even if it was exceptionally well done and went back to the core of what made the original Rocky a great film and avoided the 80s superhero stories of the sequels.

[Rick Kitchen]

I don't know why you think Rocky wouldn't pass the snob test, when the original won Best Picture.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The original Rocky actually won for best picture and best director. Stallone and Talia Shire were nominated for best actor and actress, but lost out to Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway respectively, (who were also both in the same movie, Network). But that was way back in 1977, practically before dirt was invented to some people, and tastes have changed considerably.

 

 

I'm tired of hearing about "diversity" and going forward I question what value awards to actors of color will have when there is a perception that the awards are being given as the result of social responsibility  vs. as a result of talent.    What next?  A demand to give more awards to gay actors?

To transgender actors?

 

 

Carefully co-signing.

 

Look, I get it. The playing field isn't level. Or is it that people of color don't get roles or don't get nominated at all? Because I've heard it both ways, and while the latter is supposed to be hyperbole, it also keeps getting bandied around. Why use hyperbole to make a point if the numbers are already on your side? If nothing else, I'm sure that Forest Whitaker, Denzel Washington and Halle Berry (!) would be very surprised to hear that they weren't supposed to win their statues.

 

Should we not examine the motives of the people trying to lead the charge against the Academy? Do whatever good intentions they might have outweigh their desire for a little gold man on their mantel? Not to suggest that Will Smith doesn't care deeply about the nomination process being unfair, but it does occur to me that he likely wasn't up in arms when he was being considered for an Oscar. Twice. Being only a little facetious, is he mad because After Earth crashed and burned faster than John Carter and didn't make his son a household name?

 

What's the solution? I don't think anyone knows. Get rid of the Oscars, stop giving out awards? Eradicate (a)social media like Twitter so that morons don't have a platform to stir the shit from? Because I've suggested in the past that people should learn to police themselves about much less serious matters than this, and been told "That's just how it is." I mean, if people can't even agree about whether a dress is blue and black or white and gold, I'm not sure there could ever be a consensus about something that's actually relevant.

[absnow54]

In regards to whitewashing movies, the depressing explanation is that it sells. We can blame Hollywood and producers all we like, but when audiences have shown they're more prepared to pay money for a movie when it stars a white guy, what can you do? That's the name of the game, after all. If you don't make money, you don't last long in the movie business.

Black people can only be in movies about gangs, slaves or Tyler Perry. Women can't headline action movies. Asian and Latino people can only be supporting players. None of this should be true, but audiences have demonstrated that, too often, it is. You need to get into cultural norms and the history of your society to find the explanation, and it's not an elusive one. Non-white people were second class citizens in every way until the 1960s, it can hardly be a surprise that a lot of people still see them that way.

Is this really true though? Star Wars was headlined by a woman and a black man and didn't have any trouble becoming the highest grossing *domestic* movie of all time. The Hunger Games was a franchise of action movies headlined by a woman. Kevin Hart can fill theaters without being in a gang or a slave. Dwayne Johnson can revive dead franchises with his charm. Netflix's biggest show is about a diverse group of women in prison. Empire is probably the biggest show on broadcast television. I don't think that audiences are so stubborn that they only want to see white dudes, I think audiences want good characters and entertaining stories.

Edited January 31, 2016 by absnow54

[gator12]

Star Wars is not the highest grossing movie of all time, the King is still James Cameron two films. bleh 

[Ms Blue Jay]

In regards to whitewashing movies, the depressing explanation is that it sells. We can blame Hollywood and producers all we like, but when audiences have shown they're more prepared to pay money for a movie when it stars a white guy, what can you do? That's the name of the game, after all. If you don't make money, you don't last long in the movie business.

Black people can only be in movies about gangs, slaves or Tyler Perry. Women can't headline action movies. Asian and Latino people can only be supporting players. None of this should be true, but audiences have demonstrated that, too often, it is. You need to get into cultural norms and the history of your society to find the explanation, and it's not an elusive one. Non-white people were second class citizens in every way until the 1960s, it can hardly be a surprise that a lot of people still see them that way.

 

Romeo Must Die, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Rush Hour x 3 movies, Harold and Kumar x 3 movies, The Fast and The Furious series x 7 movies starring Vin Diesel, Star Wars Force Awakens stars a white woman, a black man, and a Latino man, the Tomb Raider series, The Hunger Games, The Divergent series, Salt made 293.5 million USD, Zoe Saldana was a big part of Avatar, so was Michelle Rodriguez, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the Sex and the City movies, Bridesmaids, Will Smith in everything (Focus and Concussion just this year), Master of None, The Mindy Project, How to Get Away with Murder, Scandal, Marvel's Jessica Jones, The Best Man Holiday, Creed, it can happen again and again and again and again and some people don't want to be convinced.  There is a lot of television and movies out there where a white guy is nowhere in the starring role, or plays second fiddle to someone you claim cannot make money.

 

There seems to be a confusion here between what makes money and what gets nominated for an Oscar.  The Best Picture nominees this year weren't the same as the highest grossing movies.  White men are at the centre of almost every single Oscar nominated film but not at the centre of what is a hit at the box office.  It's not the same group of 8 movies.  3 in the Top 10 Box Office hits this year were Star Wars, Furious 7, and The Hunger Games.  If you want your film to be nominated for an Oscar, sure, put a lot of white men in it.  If you want your film to make money, then the recipe is much more in the air.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[angora]

Audiences have definitely demonstrated, time and again, that they'll go see movies starring women or people of color.  The problem is that the studios seem to view each success in this arena as an exception, while any movie about women or PoC that fails is held up as proof that, "See!  It's not our fault!  People just don't want to see these movies!"  (Never, of course, taking into account the failed movie's overall quality, just the gender or skin color of the most prominent faces onscreen.)

 

And yes, the best picture nominees this year are super-white (although The Martian at least has some PoC doing fine work in supporting roles.)  My brain has started referring to the likes of The Big Short, Spotlight, Bridge of Spies, and so forth as "look at all our white people!" movies.

[Danny Franks]

Is this really true though? Star Wars was headlined by a woman and a black man and didn't have any trouble becoming the highest grossing *domestic* movie of all time. The Hunger Games was a franchise of action movies headlined by a woman. Kevin Hart can fill theaters without being in a gang or a slave. Dwayne Johnson can revive dead franchises with his charm. Netflix's biggest show is about a diverse group of women in prison. Empire is probably the biggest show on broadcast television. I don't think that audiences are so stubborn that they only want to see white dudes, I think audiences want good characters and entertaining stories.

 

I don't think it's true all the time, and it does seem that times are changing. The one that's closest to being dis-proven, despite Hollywood stubbornness, is the women in action movies one. As you say, there's the Hunger Games (though I'd be more likely to lump them in with Twilight, Divergent etc, as YA movies), but there's also the likes of Scarlett Johansson and Emily Blunt proving that women can do action and be accepted.

 

I think Star Wars would have made huge profits regardless of who was in it, but it certainly doesn't hurt that it was a woman and a black man as the leads. It's Star Wars, and that transcends everything. When it comes to Dwayne Johnson, Will Smith and Denzel Washington, they have the sort of charisma that can also transcend everything. But even then, they're too often subject to shit like the producers of Hitch deciding they had to cast Eva Mendes as the female lead rather than a white woman.

 

It probably is the case that audiences are evolving and becoming more accepting of seeing people 'different' from themselves as the stars of TV and movies, but it has taken a long time, and there have been enough failures (that can often be attributed to just being bad, as opposed to being negatively received by the audience. Like the Tomb Raider movies) that it seems execs are very gun-shy about any projects that don't conform to the old norms. When your job and money are what are on the line, it's probably a lot more difficult to make decisions you see as risks. Why do that, when you can go with the nice, safe white guy? It'll take more evidence to prove to them, and to audiences, that casting can be more diverse and still work really well.

 

I'm not sure where Orange is the New Black, Sex in the City, Bridesmaids and The Mindy Project factor in, because they're not action movies/shows. Dramas and comedies are fair game for both genders, as far as I can tell.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Danny Franks

[Ms Blue Jay]

You don't see where they factor in?  They factor in when you say the following:

 

when audiences have shown they're more prepared to pay money for a movie when it stars a white guy,

 

Bridesmaids and Sex and the City do not have a white man in the starring role.  They play 5th or 7th wheel in these movies.  In Orange is the New Black, a huge hit for Netflix, a white man might play the 20th most important part.

 

They factor in where you say the following:

 

Asian and Latino people can only be supporting players.

 

An Asian woman stars in The Mindy Project.

 

I'm also curious what performances by Idris Elba you thought were one-note.  The Wire?  Luther?  

 

When it comes to Dwayne Johnson, Will Smith and Denzel Washington, they have the sort of charisma that can also transcend everything. But even then, they're too often subject to shit like the producers of Hitch deciding they had to cast Eva Mendes as the female lead rather than a white woman.

 

I'm sorry, but this charisma stuff is nonsense.  You say that people pay are more prepared to spend money on movies with white men in the starring role, I show you examples of the opposite, and you say this charisma argument as if for these 3 particular men race doesn't matter.  It's a circular argument.   Apparently when people of colour star in a box office hit, those examples can all be dismissed because of reasons like "charisma" or "Star Wars".   Why is it "shit" that Eva Mendes was cast in the female lead?  Why do you need a white woman in that role?  Why would that be expected or the default?  Why was that a bad thing that that movie was subjected to?  The movie was a success.  So in the end it doesn't matter and it's another great example of a Latina being in a near-starring role in a movie that made money.

 

Audiences don't need to be proven anything.  They've shown, with their money, that they will go to see the movies they want regardless of the race of the stars.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[JBC344]

Star Wars is not the highest grossing movie of all time, the King is still James Cameron two films. bleh 

The poster was referring to Star Wars The Force Awakens being the highest "domestic" grossing movie of all time.  They are correct.  Avatar is the high grossing movie on the planet.  The distinction is between the "American" and "International" markets, which are becoming more of a bigger factor in the race issue.

[absnow54]

When your job and money are what are on the line, it's probably a lot more difficult to make decisions you see as risks. Why do that, when you can go with the nice, safe white guy? It'll take more evidence to prove to them, and to audiences, that casting can be more diverse and still work really well.

I'm not sure where Orange is the New Black, Sex in the City, Bridesmaids and The Mindy Project factor in, because they're not action movies/shows.

The other examples may not be action movies, but they're examples of shows and movies who found an audience and made money (although, as much as I love the Mindy Project, calling that show successful is a stretch.)

 

I understand why you point to Action movies as the primary money maker because the genre dominates the lists of box office record holders, but calling the "White Guy Action Thriller" formula a safe bet is ignoring all the massive failures the genre also sees. John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Jack the Giant Slayer, just to name a few. The safe bet for the genre has relied on adaptations, remakes, and sequels as of late. What will be interesting is to see how he DC comic films perform since they're comics with built in fan bases and they aren't afraid to cast POC or produce a women led action film, while Marvel has been comfortably playing it safe. Based on the quality of Man of Steel, though, I'm not holding my breath on them making great films, since the studio seems to lack any sense of humor.

[JBC344]

You don't see where they factor in?  They factor in when you say the following:

 

 

Bridesmaids and Sex and the City do not have a white man in the starring role.  They play 5th or 7th wheel in these movies.  In Orange is the New Black, a huge hit for Netflix, a white man might play the 20th most important part.

 

They factor in where you say the following:

 

 

An Asian woman stars in The Mindy Project.

 

I'm also curious what performances by Idris Elba you thought were one-note.  The Wire?  Luther?  

 

 

I'm sorry, but this charisma stuff is nonsense.  You say that people pay are more prepared to spend money on movies with white men in the starring role, I show you examples of the opposite, and you say this charisma argument as if for these 3 particular men race doesn't matter.  It's a circular argument.   Apparently when people of colour star in a box office hit, those examples can all be dismissed because of reasons like "charisma" or "Star Wars".   Why is it "shit" that Eva Mendes was cast in the female lead?  Why do you need a white woman in that role?  Why would that be expected or the default?  Why was that a bad thing that that movie was subjected to?  The movie was a success.  So in the end it doesn't matter and it's another great example of a Latina being in a near-starring role in a movie that made money.

 

Audiences don't need to be proven anything.  They've shown, with their money, that they will go to see the movies they want regardless of the race of the stars.

Very well said.  Just to add to that.  Last year when we had the Sony hack and those e-mails got exposed about the executives were told not to hire Denzel in any more lead roles but the overseas market would not pay to see a black man as the lead even if he was Denzel.  Damn shame.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Regarding The Mindy Project, four seasons in this day and age is a pretty good run.  Not cancelled yet.  My point was that there are examples of Asian and Latino people in starring roles, like Jane the Virgin, even if their ratings aren't as good as say, Empire, which stars a huge cast of black actors.  The shows exist.  Fresh off the Boat, black-ish.  There are no white men in starring roles on these shows.  CW also has iZombie which stars a white woman in an ACTION role with a cast of actors of colour supporting her.  It also has Crazy Ex-Girlfriend where the male lead is Asian.  The shows exist everywhere, you turn on the television and they're there.  All of these shows are in their second season or renewed for a second season.   I don't really like being told that Asian and Latino people cannot star in something when there are so many examples to the contrary.

 

What will be interesting is to see how he DC comic films perform since they're comics with built in fan bases and they aren't afraid to cast POC or produce a women led action film, while Marvel has been comfortably playing it safe

 

Marvel on Netflix has Jessica Jones which is an action show starring a white woman.

Next Marvel on Netflix will have Luke Cage which is an action show starring a black man.

I'm confident that these shows are / will be successes.  JJ's already been renewed for Season 2.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[xaxat]

Oh look! Another Tarzan movie.

 

I don't care how many black people you cast in roles (in this case Djimon Hounsou and Sam Jackson), I've always thought that the Tarzan myth is based on the unfixable premise that a white twenty something guy can learn the jungle better than the people who have lived there literally since the dawn of humanity.

 

This movie looks like it is totally a white savior flick.

[DollEyes]

 

I can't speak to whether white men are jealous of Idris Elba, but I watch Beasts of No Nation (somehow I stayed awake) and thought his performance was one-note and lackluster and certainly not worthy of an award--unless of course they're giving out awards out for British guys playing African bad guys. I know the movie was supposed to be "important" but it wasn't very engaging. Also, in the movie, Elba played a pedophile. Maybe that had something to do with the lack of recognition.

 

IMHO, Elba's performance in The Wire was far superior.

 

  I respectfully disagree. Re the first point, I didn't think Idris Elba's performance in Beasts Of No Nation was "lackluster" by a long shot. I agree that IE was great in The Wire, but that is by no means his only great performance. He's done other brilliant work in the past, like Sometimes In April, Luther & Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom, in the present, like BONN and I'm sure he'll be brilliant again in  the future. About IE's character in BONN not being Oscar-worthy because he played a pedophile, as far as I'm concerned, if Marlon Brando can win (and refuse) an Oscar for playing gangster Don Corleone in The Godfather and Anthony Hopkins can win for playing Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the psychologist-turned-serial-killing cannibal, then IE's warlord/pedophile deserved at least a nomination.

 

 

I'm tired of hearing about "diversity" and going forward I question what value awards  to actors of color will have when there is the perception that the awards are being given as a result of social responsibility vs. a result of talent. What next? A demand to give more awards to gay actors? To transgender actors?

 

  Again respectfully disagreeing. What I'm  tired of is people from one minority group trying to trivialize the suffering of another and now I'm sorry to say that Sir Ian McKellen, an actor I admire, is one of them because of his claim that it's harder for openly gay actors to get Oscar nominations when he himself got nominated twice after he came out. I'm tired of White actors like Sir Michael Caine-another one of my favorites-telling actors of color that they should "be patient" and that the Academy will eventually reward them, which is easy for him to say, since he's a multiple nominee and a two-time winner himself. In fairness, plenty of White actors have endured the same struggle, sort of. The late Peter O'Toole was nominated for Oscars numerous times and never won for a single performance. This year's Best Actor frontrunner Leonardo Di Caprio has been nominated for Oscars four time before now, but at least O'Toole & Di Caprio actually were nominated; Idris Elba, a great actor in his own right, can't even get that much love from the Academy. Don't even get me started on Stacey Dash. hearing that kind of ignorance form White people is bad enough, but when it's from a minority it's even worse. SD has made only one good movie (Clueless) and that was 20 years ago. If SD was really offended by the concept of BET then she wouldn't have done shows for them, as the network president so rightly pointed out, so SD and her hypocritical, dumb ass can have several seats.

 

  As for Will & Jada Pinkett Smith's part in all this, while I normally don't have much if any use for the Smith family, I believe that if they were just boycotting the Oscars just because he wasn't nominated for Concussion, then I'd agree that it's just a publicity stunt, but IE's, Michael B. Jordan's, Ryan Coogler's & Straight Outta Compton getting shut out (except for SOC's lone Best Original Screenplay nom, which is for the film's White writers) this year and Selma star David Oyelowolo and its director Ava DuVernay getting shut out the year before that prove otherwise. Apparently the Academy has deluded itself into thinking that just because 12 Years A Slave won Best Picture a couple of years ago that they don't have to be "nice" to actors/films of color anymore, which is ludicrous. I'm not saying that the Academy should practice quotas and just nominate any film a minority group makes no matter how shitty it is, just they they consider that minorities can makes great film too. it's about giving highly qualified people who happen to be minorities a chance to prove how good they are, aka affirmative action. In the vast scheme of things, the Oscars are trivial and who wins them is a rich people problem, but the snubs are just the latest example of how insidious and powerful racism still is. If A-list movie stars sill experience discrimination because of their color, then the artists who are still struggling have it even worse.

Edited February 5, 2016 by DollEyes

[Joe]

Oh look! Another Tarzan movie.

 

I don't care how many black people you cast in roles (in this case Djimon Hounsou and Sam Jackson), I've always thought that the Tarzan myth is based on the unfixable premise that a white twenty something guy can learn the jungle better than the people who have lived there literally since the dawn of humanity.

 

This movie looks like it is totally a white savior flick.

One the one hand, I completely agree with you. On the other, he was raised by gorillas as one of them. It's not like he wandered in at age 20 and started learning the ways of the jungle. On the third hand, I've read some Tarzan. ERB was shockingly racist. Of the two stories I've read, I had to stop when I hit that part.

 

On a somewhat different note, I find the whole race/sex/sexuality thing a bit odd. I like a certain kind of story. I'm not fussed about who's in it if it's entertaining. Sadly, it often looks like I'm in a minority.

[SeanC]

I don't care how many black people you cast in roles (in this case Djimon Hounsou and Sam Jackson), I've always thought that the Tarzan myth is based on the unfixable premise that a white twenty something guy can learn the jungle better than the people who have lived there literally since the dawn of humanity.

Strictly speaking, he learns the way of the jungle from the gorillas.  That doesn't really need to say anything about the natives other than that they weren't raised by gorillas.

 

Tarzan as a property definitely draws on a ton of early 20th century preoccupation around race, though.  I actually studied the property while doing my graduate studies in history.  Burroughs was drawing on (largely unconsciously; he was a pulp writer, not somebody trying to elucidate grand themes) the then-prevalent ambivalence many felt around the effects of western industrial progress.  Tons of people were worried about whether modern civilization was cosseting people and weakening the constitutions of white civilization; Teddy Roosevelt, for instance, was obsessively fretting about this (hence, in part, his absurdly macho antics and campaigns to get people outdoors, etc.).  Tarzan, thus, is meant to be a kind of ubermensch, the modern white man but raised in a manner that he's in touch with man's primal nature (I've always found it interesting that Burroughs, an American, made Tarzan's origin that of a lost English nobleman).  The book also reflects the quasi-Darwinist notions that were so popular at the time (and contributed to World War I), that conflict is both natural and good, so if you go back and read it, Tarzan is really remarkably callous about killing other people, especially natives of the jungle.

Edited January 31, 2016 by SeanC

[Perfect Xero]

I don't know why you think Rocky wouldn't pass the snob test, when the original won Best Picture.

 

And, as I said, that was before the franchise spawned sequels starring the likes of Hulk Hogan, Mr. T, Ivan Drago, Slco the Robot, and "Don King" and featured plot lines like Rocky winning over the Russian people by beating their champion and calling for an end to the cold war. Any new entry in the franchise is going to have with weight of Rocky Vs Thunderlips to deal with.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Perfect Xero

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Marvel on Netflix has Jessica Jones which is an action show starring a white woman.

 

Marvel also has Agent Carter starring a white woman, and Agents of SHIELD, starring two Asian women (though one passes as white).

[Danny Franks]

You don't see where they factor in? They factor in when you say the following:

Bridesmaids and Sex and the City do not have a white man in the starring role. They play 5th or 7th wheel in these movies. In Orange is the New Black, a huge hit for Netflix, a white man might play the 20th most important part.

They factor in where you say the following:

And I said that audiences are more prepared to pay money to see movies with white guys. It's a comparative statement, so simply listing some things that were successful is not really relevant. Which made more money, Bridesmaids or The Hangover?

I'm also curious what performances by Idris Elba you thought were one-note. The Wire? Luther?

Every single performance of his that I've seen. Luther, Thor, Pacific Rim, The Wire, Mandela.

I'm sorry, but this charisma stuff is nonsense. You say that people pay are more prepared to spend money on movies with white men in the starring role, I show you examples of the opposite, and you say this charisma argument as if for these 3 particular men race doesn't matter. It's a circular argument. Apparently when people of colour star in a box office hit, those examples can all be dismissed because of reasons like "charisma" or "Star Wars". Why is it "shit" that Eva Mendes was cast in the female lead? Why do you need a white woman in that role? Why would that be expected or the default? Why was that a bad thing that that movie was subjected to? The movie was a success. So in the end it doesn't matter and it's another great example of a Latina being in a near-starring role in a movie that made money.

You don't think the charisma of those stars is a big reason for their success, and marks them as outliers in an industry that doesn't otherwise give men of colour headlining roles in big movies? When in comparison, stiffs like Sylvester Stallone, Stephen Seagal, Jason Stalham, Mark Wahlberg and others have been able to headline countless movies without having one iota of charisma and star power between them?

Honestly, if you think the leads in Star Wars, as good as they were, made any significant contribution to the movie's immediate success, then I don't know what to tell you. Yes, they were a big reason that it was well received, because their performances were good. But that movie would have made a billion dollars with two cardboard cutouts as the leads.

As for Eva Mendes, there's nothing wrong with her being cast as the lead in that movie. But the story is that they had Cameron Diaz cast in that role, and decided not to go with her after Will Smith signed on to lead.... Now why do you think that might have been? You don't think that's shit?

As i see it, the truth is that a lot of Americans, and people of other nationalities, still have problems with race. You are surely aware of that, as we all are, particularly after some of the events of the past few years. It seems to pervade every aspect of society, yet somehow movie audiences are immune? You don't think that a movie starring Matt Damon or Leonardo Dicaprio wouldn't make more money than an identical movie starring Will Smith or Idris Elba? I think that it would, sadly.

I think it's an oversimplification to say that the gender or skin colour of a movie's star doesn't matter because movies starring women and people of different skin colours have been successful. It patently does matter, to a lot of people. Which is the actual problem.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Danny Franks

[Trini]

... On a somewhat different note, I find the whole race/sex/sexuality thing a bit odd. I like a certain kind of story. I'm not fussed about who's in it if it's entertaining. Sadly, it often looks like I'm in a minority.

 

Hey, you're allowed to like what you like. I like romantic dramas; but it'd be nice if there were a few that had casts and stories that reflected my ethnicity and experience. Most of my favorites have all-white casts. I'm at the point that I just roll my eyes when yet another Nicolas Sparks movie comes out.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Trini

[Joe]

Hey, you're allowed to like what you like. I like romantic dramas; but it'd be nice if there were a few that had casts and stories that reflected my ethnicity and experience. Most of my favorites have all-white casts. I'm at the point that I just roll my eyes when yet another Nick Sparks movies comes out.

I think you may have got me a bit backwards. :) What I meant was that while I'm fine with straight white characters running around doing action stuff, I'm also fine with whatever else there is running around doing action stuff. Explosions and fights for everyone! Just give me those exposions and fights.

[Ms Blue Jay]

And I said that audiences are more prepared to pay money to see movies with white guys. It's a comparative statement, so simply listing some things that were successful is not really relevant. Which made more money, Bridesmaids or The Hangover?

 

Neighbours ($252 million) starring some white men made the same amount that Bridesmaids ($255 million) did.  Sex and the City made $350 million.  So does that help prove my point that people are willing to spend money to see females in comedy in equal value? 

 

My "listing things that were successful" IS relevant.  Avatar co-starred a black woman playing an alien, it didn't star 2 white men.  Star Wars starred a white woman and a black man.  These are facts.  These are the highest grossing movies of all time and are facts.  Audiences were prepared to spend money on these movies regardless of the race of the stars and so it's my evidence for why I disagree with your statement.

 

As i see it, the truth is that a lot of Americans, and people of other nationalities, still have problems with race. You are surely aware of that, as we all are, particularly after some of the events of the past few years. It seems to pervade every aspect of society, yet somehow movie audiences are immune? You don't think that a movie starring Matt Damon or Leonardo Dicaprio wouldn't make more money than an identical movie starring Will Smith or Idris Elba? I think that it would, sadly.

 

I disagree with you.  Unfortunately, you've created an impossible hypothesis where there will be no such test where an identical movie would star two different men to see how much one would make over the other.  While Concussion made no money, Focus profited more than $100 million and Will Smith has proven time and time and time again how bankable he is.   The Revenant has made a comparable profit.  The Martian, for some reason , has made about 6 times as much, but Will Smith's movies have made just as much profit in the past (on more than one occasion).

 

We can blame Hollywood and producers all we like, but when audiences have shown they're more prepared to pay money for a movie when it stars a white guy, what can you do?

 

The major difference between us is you literally write "What can you do?"  I say it's already being done.  The Hollywood movie world is already very diverse and actors of different genders, race, sexuality etc. make money for the film industry and there is no turning back.  Unfortunately the Oscars do not reflect that reality and do not recognize minorities in great roles as often as they should, which is why people are beyond frustrated.  

 

As for Eva Mendes, there's nothing wrong with her being cast as the lead in that movie. But the story is that they had Cameron Diaz cast in that role, and decided not to go with her after Will Smith signed on to lead.... Now why do you think that might have been? You don't think that's shit?

 

Eva Mendes and Cameron Diaz are both Latina women.  Cameron.... yet another perfect example to show you a Latina woman who has had top billing in some extremely high grossing comedies: The Mask, My Best Friend's Wedding, There's Something about Mary just to start with the 1990s.   I guess you're implying that Cameron's blondeness would have driven the racists away.  If the movie starred Will and Cameron, I'd say it would have made more money, because that's 2 stars instead of 1.  Maybe the studio that did Hitch was too shortsighted to see that, but I'll argue the audience would have been more than fine with paying for the movie.  That is a studio decision and not an audience one.  I don't think Focus (Will Smith and Margot Robbie) suffered from much racism this year.   It made a few more million than Trainwreck, which starred 2 white leads.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[JustaPerson]

I didn't know Cameron Diaz was half cuban. That's interesting. Though I think she fits people's (like me) perception of a "white" person (though her wiki says that her father's family emigrated from Spain to Cuba so you could make the argument that she still is a completely white person) enough that it may very well have been the reason they switched her out for Eva Mendez. As Focus illustrated, I don't think that would have happened now which I think is a good indication. I'm not sure where, but I read somewhere once that Denzel Washington always made sure he never paired up romantically with a white woman because he felt it would turn off his African American fans, especially women. Or he just feared general alienation, not just from black audiences. I believe he did have a brief love scene in Flight but that was only a few years ago, considering how long his career has lasted. I do think there has been progress, though I don't know if Star Wars really counts for that since it's just a brand on its own that I think it would have made a ton of money regardless of who was it. That being said, it's not like it hurt that they had a woman and a black man in the lead roles (plus Oscar Issac!) In fact, I think it's helped its reputation and cred that it has diversity in its ranks. But it feels more like a nice garnish and the whole dish, you know?

[Ms Blue Jay]

Her last name is Diaz ;)  She never hid this from anybody and has always been proud of her father.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[xaxat]

Strictly speaking, he learns the way of the jungle from the gorillas.  That doesn't really need to say anything about the natives other than that they weren't raised by gorillas.

 

That's kind of my point. Out of all of the generations, over all of the millennia, it's a white guy who who learns the secrets of the jungle. 

 

In my own head canon, I imagine an African telling Tarzan "Not bad, but you should have met my grandfather Jojo. He knew some serious stuff."

[Danny Franks]

My "listing things that were successful" IS relevant.  Avatar co-starred a black woman playing an alien, it didn't star 2 white men.  Star Wars starred a white woman and a black man.  These are facts.  These are the highest grossing movies of all time and are facts.  Audiences were prepared to spend money on these movies regardless of the race of the stars and so it's my evidence for why I disagree with your statement.

Avatar, the most hyped film of modern times, the film that boasted of a revolutionary breakthrough in the way movies are made, the film where the lead actor was a white guy who couldn't really act, and the lead actress was CGI'd up to be a giant blue alien. If you want to use Zoe Saldana as an example, then perhaps Colombiana, her action movie that bombed, would be a more accurate comparison.

 

Eva Mendes and Cameron Diaz are both Latina women.  Cameron.... yet another perfect example to show you a Latina woman who has had top billing in some extremely high grossing comedies: The Mask, My Best Friend's Wedding, There's Something about Mary just to start with the 1990s.   I guess you're implying that Cameron's blondeness would have driven the racists away.  If the movie starred Will and Cameron, I'd say it would have made more money, because that's 2 stars instead of 1.  Maybe the studio that did Hitch was too shortsighted to see that, but I'll argue the audience would have been more than fine with paying for the movie.  That is a studio decision and not an audience one.  I don't think Focus (Will Smith and Margot Robbie) suffered from much racism this year.   It made a few more million than Trainwreck, which starred 2 white leads.

I'm implying that Cameron's blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes would have driven racists away. Despite the name, if you asked most casual movie goers what Cameron Diaz's ethnic heritage was, I'd wager most would say she was white. And I would also wager that that perceived whiteness was the reason they recast the female after Will Smith became the male lead. You mention Focus, a movie that was talked about when it was released about being a rarity in depicting an 'interracial' couple, but ignore the main issue that it is a rarity.

 

You can bury your head in the sand and say that it's just the studio heads and execs that are racists, but I simply don't see that as a credible argument. Yes, movies can make money if they're good, regardless of race, but my argument from the start has been that they are more likely to make more money if they cast 'safe'. Movies can be great agents of change and can force people to examine their own prejudices, but in a business where the bottom line is always on the accounting books, expecting that of those who make the movies is a big ask. But we should be asking for more from everyone.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Danny Franks

[absnow54]

You can bury your head in the sand and say that it's just the studio heads and execs that are racists, but I simply don't see that as a credible argument. Yes, movies can make money if they're good, regardless of race, but my argument from the start has been that they are more likely to make more money if they cast 'safe'. Movies can be great agents of change and can force people to examine their own prejudices, but in a business where the bottom line is always on the accounting books, expecting that of those who make the movies is a big ask. But we should be asking for more from everyone.

It would be naive to think that the studio heads were the only racists in the equation. One needs only look at twitter in the aftermath of John Boyega being cast as a lead in Star Wars, or Michael B Jordan being cast as Johnny Storm, or Amandla Stenberg being cast as Rue in the Hunger Games (a character that was actually written as black in not so subtle terms.) The question, to me, is why is this the audience that's being catered to when there's another large and vocal audience that want a more accurate depiction of American culture today. Was casting a bunch of white people as Egyptians in Exodus: Gods and Kings a formula for success? Or casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily for Pan? I think it shows that audiences are changing, and execs have been slow to acknowledge that white washing a film with big name movie stars isn't the formula for success that it had once been. 

[Bruinsfan]

That's kind of my point. Out of all of the generations, over all of the millennia, it's a white guy who who learns the secrets of the jungle.

From another point of view, it's a white guy whose parents were incompetent enough to get themselves killed in the jungle with no backups for raising their child except a group of foundling-friendly gorillas. Presumably the native residents are actually able to survive and raise their kids successfully, thus eliminating the need for adoptions by Koko and Mighty Joe Young that gave Tarzan his superlative wilderness survival training.

[Ms Blue Jay]

You mention Focus, a movie that was talked about when it was released about being a rarity in depicting an 'interracial' couple, but ignore the main issue that it is a rarity.

 

What does it matter if the interracial love story in Focus was a rarity?  My point is it was a box office success, rare or not.   The fact that it's "rare" only makes the box office results more impressive, not less.

 

I get that there are racist movie studios and producers out there.  I've never disagreed with that.  You keep pointing to examples like Hitch not casting Cameron, or Focus being so rare as big issues.  They are not big issues to me when I'm only talking about the box office results, not whatever racist studio decisions might happen beforehand.  I think that these studios are out of touch and make stupid decisions (to continue on absnow54's point).

 

I think it's "burying your head in the sand" to think that the success of Star Wars and Avatar doesn't spell out something great in terms of female action stars and minority actors having movie star potential and bankability.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Danny Franks]

It would be naive to think that the studio heads were the only racists in the equation. One needs only look at twitter in the aftermath of John Boyega being cast as a lead in Star Wars, or Michael B Jordan being cast as Johnny Storm, or Amandla Stenberg being cast as Rue in the Hunger Games (a character that was actually written as black in not so subtle terms.) The question, to me, is why is this the audience that's being catered to when there's another large and vocal audience that want a more accurate depiction of American culture today. Was casting a bunch of white people as Egyptians in Exodus: Gods and Kings a formula for success? Or casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily for Pan? I think it shows that audiences are changing, and execs have been slow to acknowledge that white washing a film with big name movie stars isn't the formula for success that it had once been. 

 

Maybe they will start catering to that audience. Maybe the couple of successes mentioned will be seen as catalysts for those who make the decisions to believe they can offer a more accurate depiction of American culture. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it happened in any big way any time soon. This isn't just vocal, vociferous racists and/or misogynists we're talking about either. It's mostly people who might just dismiss certain movies as not of interest, as not appealing to them. Those are the people that studios have been frightened of, when considering something like a Black Widow movie. Until movie producers are sure their audience isn't made up of lots of people like that, they won't take the risk. But I don't think equating online reactions to the reactions of the movie going public at large is a reliable measure.

 

As for bad movies being failures, that's always going to be the case. Casting doesn't matter, if the movie sucks.

 

I think it's "burying your head in the sand" to think that the success of Star Wars and Avatar don't spell out something great in terms of female action stars and minority actors having movie star potential and bankability.

 

 

I think Avatar said nothing whatsoever about the bankability of anyone in that movie. As Sam Worthington's career since then ably demonstrates. Star Wars has helped, but as I already said, that movie was guaranteed to make a billion dollars, regardless of who was in it. I already made my feelings about Rey and Finn as protagonists very clear, in the movie thread, but I don't expect everyone will feel the same. And there are one or two people in there who have made their unhappiness with the principle casting clear.

 

But you still seem to be labouring under the idea that I don't think minority and female actors can make money. I didn't say that, as I've already pointed out. I said that movies with white male leads are more likely to make more money. And when a studio is greenlighting a movie, they want to make as much money as possible. They will go the route that they believe will make them the most money.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Danny Franks

[ChelseaNH]

I said that movies with white male leads are more likely to make more money.

 

Movies with white male leads are perceived as more likely to make more money.  It's a self-reinforcing prediction -- those are the movies that get made, so those are the movies that make money, so those are the movies that get made.

 

Meanwhile, we keep seeing movies that aren't built around white male leads having financial success, but for some reason, that doesn't seem to make a dent in the usual mindset.  Many executives aren't willing to move beyond what they've always known because a lot of Hollywood operates from a position of fear.

[Rick Kitchen]

So Elizabeth Banks is going to play Rita Repulsa.

[methodwriter85]

So Elizabeth Banks is going to play Rita Repulsa.

 

Honestly? Rita is humanoid alien. Just because the actress who played her on the T.V. show was Asian doesn't mean I was expecting Rita on the show to be Asian. And I'm saying this as an Asian guy.

 

And apparently people of other races have played the part- they are some Latina names there for the list of people who played the part.

 

I think trying to play a "whitewash" racecard would be ridiculous in this case, because again, nothing was ever indicated that Rita was supposed to be Asian other than her being played by an Asian actress. As she is, again, a humanoid alien witch bent on conquering worlds.

Edited February 3, 2016 by methodwriter85

[galax-arena]

I know that they've made the Power Rangers themselves more diverse than they were originally - remember when the black guy was the Black Ranger and the Asian girl was the Yellow Ranger? yeesh - so I think this is more complicated than the studio wanting everyone to be white, but just re: this part -

nothing was ever indicated that Rita was supposed to be Asian other than her being played by an Asian actress

I don't know how I feel about this argument. If I'm parsing you correctly, you're saying that there's nothing about the role that requires Rita to be Asian. And I guess my response to that would be, "And?" Why should we be delegated to only roles where our race is made into this Very Big Thing? Why can't our race be treated as only incidental to the story, the way white people's race is handled all the time? I remember someone looking at the stats for Asian people nominated for Oscars (?), and so many of those roles involved situations where only an Asian could play the role because the person's race was integral to the story. 

 

And apparently people of other races have played the part- they are some Latina names there for the list of people who played the part.

Carla Perez (one of the Rita actresses) might be Latina, but she's also of Asian descent. And Julia Cortez is Filipina. So yes, there is a tradition of Rita being played by an Asian actress. Rita might be fictional, but I think this counts as whitewashing. 

 

As an aside, for the longest time I avoided Asian-American lit because I thought they'd involve being beaten over the head with the struggle to reconcile one's ethnicity with American culture.

 

ETA: Honestly, they should just go with Rita's original backstory, because that sounds amazing.

Edited February 3, 2016 by galax-arena

[SeanC]

The part was definitely Asian originally, since the actress' race was visible, even if the character herself was an alien or whatever.  But given that they made the Rangers themselves 80% non-white (it's now a white dude, a black dude, a Chinese dude, an Hispanic girl, and an Indian girl), I think they've got room to cast a white woman as the villain.

[twoods]

I liked Naomi Scott in Lemonade Mouth- she looked mixed but had no idea she was half Gujarati. Awesome! I'm not a Power Ranger fan but the cast is very diverse which is nice to see.

I don't know why there aren't more love stories based on interracial couples. Save the Last Dance did very well, and Bend It Like Beckham was one of my favorite movies. I'm tired of the billionth Sparks movie.

[feverfew]

I don't know why there aren't more love stories based on interracial couples. Save the Last Dance did very well, and Bend It Like Beckham was one of my favorite movies. I'm tired of the billionth Sparks movie.

 

If you venture outside Hollywood, there's actually a lot of movies with interracial couples. And love stories where race isn't the main source of conflict. But then again, while Europa has its fair share of racism (especially now because of the refugees from Syria etc), we don't have quite the same history as the US. Ours is more in the vein of 'class'.

[galax-arena]

The part was definitely Asian originally, since the actress' race was visible, even if the character herself was an alien or whatever.  But given that they made the Rangers themselves 80% non-white (it's now a white dude, a black dude, a Chinese dude, an Hispanic girl, and an Indian girl), I think they've got room to cast a white woman as the villain.

 

The thing is, while yeah this isn't a typical whitewashing situation where the studio just wants everyone to be white, that just makes it sound like there's some sort of quota. It reminds me of how they diversified Big Hero 6 because there couldn't be too many Asians. Or how people used to insist that Melinda May and Skye on AOS were probably related because goodness knows there can't be two (East) Asian leads on a show who aren't related to each other, that just wouldn't make sense. Room for a white woman to be villain? But why? Why can't white people be largely left out for once? Why can't they be the token? Why can't Asians (sort of) dominate the movie the way white people dominate almost everything else in Hollywood?

 

LOL, I apparently have more ~feelings about this than I thought. I initially figured, yeah, this is whitewashing, but they DID make the original Power Rangers group more diverse, so... but then I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that one doesn't excuse the other, it's not some tit-for-tat situation when you consider the history of Asian underrepresentation/whitewashing in Hollywood. And then I thought about how this all played out with Big Hero 6 before and became very annoyed lmao. (Because it probably wasn't obvious.../s)

Edited February 4, 2016 by galax-arena

[JustaPerson]

Word on Big Hero 6. I was a little annoyed/confused about why they felt the need to give Hiro the white aunt. Why couldn't they just make him full Asian? (nothing against half asian people out there) Did they think people wouldn't understand him as a character unless he was somehow white too?

[SeanC]

The thing is, while yeah this isn't a typical whitewashing situation where the studio just wants everyone to be white, that just makes it sound like there's some sort of quota. 

I wasn't saying there needs to be quotas, though from the casting I think they clearly were going for a Captain Planet-style multiethnic team of Rangers.  I see as being a situation where you're doing a lot of different race changes, the cumulative effect of which is to make the property more diverse than the original was, so I don't see a problem (akin to the 2000s Battlestar Galactica would be another example).

Word on Big Hero 6. I was a little annoyed/confused about why they felt the need to give Hiro the white aunt. Why couldn't they just make him full Asian? (nothing against half asian people out there) Did they think people wouldn't understand him as a character unless he was somehow white too?

I was never clear on that either.  I was debating whether it was meant to be a reference to the background of Hiro's voice actor (as Disney does that sometimes), since purely from a visual standpoint he looks Asian anyway (and if you were going to "whiten" the lead a bit, surely you'd start with his name).

Edited February 4, 2016 by SeanC