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

[Hiyo]

Quote

The more believable thing was that Goose showed Rooster this song in childhood and he grew up with it.  How old was Rooster when Goose died?  A baby?  

Plus possibly Rooster's mom would mention to him every once in a while how much his dad loved the song.

[proserpina65]

On 6/9/2022 at 1:44 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

I've been to many baseball games over my life (basketball, hockey, etc.)..... hence my username.  Typical songs:  The Sweet Escape, We Will Rock You, Get Ready for This, Sandstorm, etc.  I've never heard it.  

The only one of those I've ever heard at all is We Will Rock You.  I have heard Great Balls of Fire at a minor league baseball game.

On 6/9/2022 at 1:44 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Yes, but every friend in this group knowing this particular song from all the same source is stretching the imagination.

Not mine.  But I'm leaving it there.

[Raja]

A guy pulls the plug of the jukebox at a private bar and an impromptu karaoke accompanied by Rooster breaks out. I think it was not the first time and enough of the aviators had been around when Rooster did his favorite stride/rockabilly piano driven song before.

[Trini]

'Inclusion Impact Report 2022' - at Variety:

Quote

Variety highlights advocates for inclusivity who’ve made an impact in the entertainment industry over the past year.

Includes movies and TV, and more.

[methodwriter85]

I'm starting to realize that I'm having mixed feelings about this whole "hey, let's put minorities in traditionally white roles in period pieces" trend. On one hand, it's nice to see people getting the chance to play roles they wouldn't have gotten a chance to play even 10 years ago. I get that a black person doing a period piece set in the early 1800's doesn't want to be limited to playing a slave. On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

Like are we going to get the point where we do a black Scarlett in a Gone with the Wind remake where she still blithely benefits from slave labor until the Civil War disrupts everything? Because that is honestly what the logical extreme ending of this color-blind casting feels like.

Edited June 18, 2022 by methodwriter85

[Hiyo]

Quote

On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

Like are we going to get the point where we do a black Scarlett in a Gone with the Wind remake where she still blithely benefits from slave labor until the Civil War disrupts everything? Because that is honestly what the logical extreme ending of this color-blind casting feels like.

I think you just kind of have to ignore all of that...also, you'd have to ignore that these families have made their fortunes off of a combination of slavery and exploitation of people in other countries that were part of the empire.

[Irlandesa]

23 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

23 hours ago, Hiyo said:

I think you just kind of have to ignore all of that...also, you'd have to ignore that these families have made their fortunes off of a combination of slavery and exploitation of people in other countries that were part of the empire.

I agree. 

It's not just period pieces with diverse casts that are the only period pieces that ignore what POC went through back then.  Period pieces with white casts didn't even talk about where the money came from.  At most, they might talk about the tenant system.  They didn't talk about the slavery.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Irlandesa

[Scarlett45]

22 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I'm starting to realize that I'm having mixed feelings about this whole "hey, let's put minorities in traditionally white roles in period pieces" trend. On one hand, it's nice to see people getting the chance to play roles they wouldn't have gotten a chance to play even 10 years ago. I get that a black person doing a period piece set in the early 1800's doesn't want to be limited to playing a slave. On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

Like are we going to get the point where we do a black Scarlett in a Gone with the Wind remake where she still blithely benefits from slave labor until the Civil War disrupts everything? Because that is honestly what the logical extreme ending of this color-blind casting feels like.

I understand what you’re saying. As a black woman who loves historical fiction and period pieces- I like seeing minority actors in these parts, especially in movies that are pretty and fun. But I do think you’re right. 
 

I think there would be fewer mixed feelings if we did have historically accurate, period pieces where the minority characters had agency, but it was reflective of the social ills of the time. 
 

Then the movies above, like the new Persuasion and Mr Malcolm’s list could be set in an “alternate reality” and we could enjoy them with feeling as if we were ignoring what really happened. It’s as if we cannot tell minority stories without being all about their oppression OR we have to pretend like oppression never existed.  Neither is good storytelling on the whole. 

[Trini]

On 6/18/2022 at 12:46 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I'm starting to realize that I'm having mixed feelings about this whole "hey, let's put minorities in traditionally white roles in period pieces" trend. On one hand, it's nice to see people getting the chance to play roles they wouldn't have gotten a chance to play even 10 years ago. I get that a black person doing a period piece set in the early 1800's doesn't want to be limited to playing a slave. On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

Well, let's all remember that brown peoples were also doing other things besides being victims of colonizers in the 1800s (or whenever); so let's start with that. Those stories aren't being told - in Hollywood at least. Stories set in that time period that feature minorities don't necessarily have to have race relations as a plot point.

I agree that it shouldn't be ignored; however, I'm willing to give a pass to colorblind casting in these projects where it's not really about history. Also after a century of filmmaking with multitudes of films where racism is ignored, I'm fine with a few that ignore racism but with brown faces featured instead.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Trini
oy, grammar

[Irlandesa]

Plus, some of these movies, Mr. Malcolm's List especially, aren't historically accurate at all. It's not just the color blind casting but women have a lot more agency in historical romance than many actually did. 

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, Trini said:

I agree that it shouldn't be ignored; however, I'm willing to give a pass to colorblind casting in these projects where it's not really about history. Also after a century of filmmaking with multitudes of films where racism is ignored, I'm fine with a few that ignore racism but with brown faces featured instead.

I am closer to your line of thinking. 

8 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Plus, some of these movies, Mr. Malcolm's List especially, aren't historically accurate at all. It's not just the color blind casting but women have a lot more agency in historical romance than many actually did. 

True. And we also have a lot of period pieces about rich people- because they kept a lot of records, wore pretty clothes and threw the fancy parties that make for entertaining movies. “Regular folk” are not usually the subject of these types of films. 

[angora]

9 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I understand what you’re saying. As a black woman who loves historical fiction and period pieces- I like seeing minority actors in these parts, especially in movies that are pretty and fun. But I do think you’re right. 
 

I think there would be fewer mixed feelings if we did have historically accurate, period pieces where the minority characters had agency, but it was reflective of the social ills of the time. 
 

Then the movies above, like the new Persuasion and Mr Malcolm’s list could be set in an “alternate reality” and we could enjoy them with feeling as if we were ignoring what really happened. It’s as if we cannot tell minority stories without being all about their oppression OR we have to pretend like oppression never existed.  Neither is good storytelling on the whole. 

ITA @Scarlett45. I like seeing actors of color in period pieces where it's just about telling an entertaining story, especially when it comes to classics like Jane Austen or Charles Dickens. Like, why would I NOT want Dev Patel to have the chance to play David Copperfield? But at the same time, I want to have OTHER period pieces where the BIPOC characters aren't color-blind casting, and I don't want all of those movies to be like 12 Years a Slave.

I adore Belle, starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw. It's a fascinating look at the precarious position of a mixed-race daughter of an aristocrat in 18th-century England, and her race is deeply entwined in her story while also being about the excitement of going to "town" and going on walks with handsome men at garden parties.

The film isn't as great as I wanted it to be, but I also really like the casting of the Magnificent Seven remake, which stars Denzel Washington and features Byung-hun Lee, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, and Martin Sensmeier. One of my favorite historical facts is that a large proportion of cowboys in the Old West were Black or Mexican, so I'm ALWAYS in favor of more BIPOC in westerns. Additionally, it's great to have an Indigenous character who isn't a nameless enemy or "Magical Indian," as well as a film that acknowledges that Asians in the Old West were a thing.

On a related note, I love this scene in a Doctor Who episode where the Twelfth Doctor takes Bill to the 19th century:

[Popples]

10 hours ago, angora said:

On a related note, I love this scene in a Doctor Who episode where the Twelfth Doctor takes Bill to the 19th century:

I loved this so much compared to Ten's attitude when he took Martha back to Shakespearean times and she expressed her discomfort and he dismissed her feelings and condescendingly told her to walk around the joint and act like you own it and nobody will bother you. Sure, Jan Ten. 🙄

[Luckylyn]

On 6/18/2022 at 12:46 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I'm starting to realize that I'm having mixed feelings about this whole "hey, let's put minorities in traditionally white roles in period pieces" trend. On one hand, it's nice to see people getting the chance to play roles they wouldn't have gotten a chance to play even 10 years ago. I get that a black person doing a period piece set in the early 1800's doesn't want to be limited to playing a slave. On the other hand...it just kind of feels like we're minimizing what minorities actually went through at the hands of white Western society colonizers by ignoring the historical context of race relations or going, "Oh hey, a black woman married into English royalty so that solved systemic racism, yippeee!!!"

Like are we going to get the point where we do a black Scarlett in a Gone with the Wind remake where she still blithely benefits from slave labor until the Civil War disrupts everything? Because that is honestly what the logical extreme ending of this color-blind casting feels like.

The thing is there were prominent black people like  Dido Belle and Alexandre Dumas’ father in history and even with money and accomplishments they had to deal with bigotry.   I wish film makers who want more diversity in period films would do more research to find out about the real people of color who weren’t all servants lived and use that as a foundation for the stories.  I like the increased diversity but want the issues of those periods not to be swept under the rug.  But on the other hand for some it’s all about the feel good fantasy and romance.  Realism isn’t the point.   There is also the issue of only using people of color for suffering storylines.   Just letting people regardless of color have some frothy romance free of reality has appeal.   

I feel like the movie Belle acknowledges the issues of the time and provides the romance factor.  The fact that she was more privileged than her cousin because her father left her fortune but she is also less privileged because she’s not allowed to eat with the family when they have guests because of her color shows how the money doesn’t magically fix racism.  

[Spartan Girl]

I just saw Lightyear yesterday, and I want to talk about they handled Buzz’s friend Alisha and her relationship. Without giving too much away about the plot, Alisha informs Buzz that she got engaged while he was in space. Buzz automatically congratulates asks who she is. There is no “coming out” scene, because Buzz already knows. And the scenes depicting Alisha and her new family were just lovely—screw the bigots.

On a related note, I’m really annoyed Lightyear isn’t doing that well at the box office because it is a really great movie. Is it also an example of Disney/Pixar milking their Toy Story franchise? Sure, but you could argue the same for Jurassic World Dominion and Top Gun Maverick, and they’re still making a ton of money. Why are they any different?

Edited June 28, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

On a related note, I’m really annoyed Lightyear isn’t doing that well at the box office because it is a really great movie. Is it also an example of Disney/Pixar milking their Toy Story franchise? Sure, but you could argue the same for Jurassic World Dominion and Top Gun Maverick, and they’re still making a ton of money? Why are they any different?

The theories I've read:

• Families are used to getting movies on Disney+ thanks to the pandemic.  Other studios have done theater to streaming as well but none have branded quite as well as Disney+ with family movies.  For family movies, since it's not just one or two people, watching at home is significantly cheaper.  It's safer to children who might not be vaccinated yet.   
• The marketing for this movie has been confusing.  People have a heavy association of who Buzz is as a toy in toy story.  This movie is about the real Buzz who the toy is based on.  I don't think the commercials have made that clear and I think the expectations of who Buzz is gets tangled with what this movie is. 

I don't know that they could have fixed the second thing.  The first thing will be fixed once the seal is broken on getting families back in movie theaters.  For the general public, big, long anticipated blockbusters brought people back which explains why Jurassic Park and Top Gun are doing well.

Elvis is doing well (I think) and is bringing back some older people who have avoided going to the theaters during the pandemic.  It might be bringing back some mid-budget pictures to the theater (if 85 million is now considered mid-budget).

Once Lightyear hits Disney+, more people will see it and probably talk about it.  Disney also makes a lot of money with toys.  

ETA: There are other theories too, like blaming the LGBTQ+ content but I just don't buy it. People do go to see movies with diversity and LGBTQ+ content if it interests them.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Irlandesa

[Spartan Girl]

58 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

•  
• The marketing for this movie has been confusing.  People have a heavy association of who Buzz is as a toy in toy story.  This movie is about the real Buzz who the toy is based on.  I don't think the commercials have made that clear and I think the expectations of who Buzz is gets tangled with what this movie is. 

I had no problem understanding it. JMO.

But back to my original point, anyone that did have such a problem with a sweet, completely tasteful depiction of an LGBTQ marriage in a kid’s movie is a bigot. And jumping on Disney supposedly “going woke, then broke” as an explanation of the film’s lack of success is just despicable.

[Irlandesa]

33 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I had no problem understanding it. JMO.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I do think it probably makes sense.  But part of the issue is convincing people to pay money to go see it. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

you could argue the same for Jurassic World Dominion and Top Gun Maverick, and they’re still making a ton of money? Why are they any different?

I think in the case of JWD, it's the final movie of the new trilogy, with the characters from the first trilogy mixed in. TGM is the long awaited sequel to a popular 80s movie that people have been wanting to see for ages now.

Plus both movies have a ton of nostalgia behind them, which for some reason Buzz seems to lack on his own.

[Ohiopirate02]

14 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

The theories I've read:

• Families are used to getting movies on Disney+ thanks to the pandemic.  Other studios have done theater to streaming as well but none have branded quite as well as Disney+ with family movies.  For family movies, since it's not just one or two people, watching at home is significantly cheaper.  It's safer to children who might not be vaccinated yet.   
• The marketing for this movie has been confusing.  People have a heavy association of who Buzz is as a toy in toy story.  This movie is about the real Buzz who the toy is based on.  I don't think the commercials have made that clear and I think the expectations of who Buzz is gets tangled with what this movie is. 

I don't know that they could have fixed the second thing.  The first thing will be fixed once the seal is broken on getting families back in movie theaters.  For the general public, big, long anticipated blockbusters brought people back which explains why Jurassic Park and Top Gun are doing well.

Elvis is doing well (I think) and is bringing back some older people who have avoided going to the theaters during the pandemic.  It might be bringing back some mid-budget pictures to the theater (if 85 million is now considered mid-budget).

Once Lightyear hits Disney+, more people will see it and probably talk about it.  Disney also makes a lot of money with toys.  

ETA: There are other theories too, like blaming the LGBTQ+ content but I just don't buy it. People do go to see movies with diversity and LGBTQ+ content if it interests them.

Yeah, going to the movies with kids gets expensive real fast.  I also wonder how well children's movies do in summer months compared to the winter releases Disney does.  In my area, this past weekend the weather was beautiful.  No one was going to take the kids to the movies when its sunny and 85 with low humidity.  That's pool/beach/river weather.  I just spent the last 3 days babysitting my niece and nephew.  We spent all 3 days outside in some capacity.  You go to the movies on really hot and humid days or days when it's storming.  

[Guest]

On 6/27/2022 at 1:59 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Sure, but you could argue the same for Jurassic World Dominion and Top Gun Maverick, and they’re still making a ton of money. Why are they any different?

It doesn’t comfortably fit within the Toy Story world which makes it feel superfluous to many people. More than anything I think it is a result of how covid has changed the box office. People are being pickier about what they see in the theater. Unlike it’s competition, Lightyear isn’t a continuation and it  does not have the type of effects that are going to be enhanced by seeing on the big screen. Plus it will be steaming quickly.

I usually take my nieces to watch Pixar movies in the theater but neither of them have seemed interested in watching Lightyear when I bring it up. With it released between Dr. Strange 2 and Thor 4 I haven’t suggested going since they don’t seem to care and I don’t really want to spend the money, use the gas or go into a theater that frequently. 

18 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Plus both movies have a ton of nostalgia behind them, which for some reason Buzz seems to lack on his own.

I think that is because it’s not the same Buzz. It looks good, I love Chris Evans and am interesting in seeing it but there is no nostalgia. 

On 6/27/2022 at 6:38 PM, Spartan Girl said:

But back to my original point, anyone that did have such a problem with a sweet, completely tasteful depiction of an LGBTQ marriage in a kid’s movie is a bigot. And jumping on Disney supposedly “going woke, then broke” as an explanation of the film’s lack of success is just despicable.

Absolutely but it’s also to be expected at this point. I am just really glad that Disney is finally not backing down on this issue anymore. For too long they gave in and edited out certain content. It took a big backlash after repeated missteps but them refusing to edit with Lightyear and Dr. Strange 2 is a big step in the right direction. 

[kiddo82]

Encanto didn't catch fire until it hit Disney+.

I think Disney overestimated the appeal of a Buzz Lightyear solo property that isn't attached to the Toy Story universe proper.  And frankly, the movie itself is middling.  I have A-list so it behooves me to see as much as I can, but at a time when people are being pickier and pickier, I get why this isn't moving the needle.  It will be interesting to see how Minions (which presently has a lower RT score than Lightyear) does this weekend.  That said, I think the people trumpeting "go woke go broke" are full of BS.  As has already been pointed out, there are some other pretty valid reasons why people would be willing to wait this one out for streaming.  

[KatWay]

I saw Lightyear and I thought it was probably a bit hard to follow for kids, all the relative time stuff. Plus it did feel a little sloppy, just a by the books film, nothing really special or standout about it. Not funny enough for kids and not clever enough for adults.

[Luckylyn]

Nice White Teachers, Bad Brown Schools: Hollywood’s Pedagogy on Urban Education 

Great analysis.  

[Constant Viewer]

Thank you for posting this Luckylyn, it was really interesting!

Edited June 29, 2022 by Constant Viewer

[Danny Franks]

On 6/29/2022 at 11:58 AM, Luckylyn said:

Nice White Teachers, Bad Brown Schools: Hollywood’s Pedagogy on Urban Education 

Great analysis.  

Bill Burr has a great bit on movies about a white saviour going into deprived 'urban' areas and turning lives around.

"They make that movie so often I'd think I would know somebody white who actually did that. 'Yeah, that's Mike, he saves ghettos. It's just what he does. I sit around watching Sportscenter, he's in the projects, writing his name on a blackboard.'"

Edited July 2, 2022 by Danny Franks

[Luckylyn]

Years ago there was a good short film called Dare

It was popular enough that it was turned into a not as good movie.  The only character that worked well in the full length film was Johnny.   The others were unlikeable.  Ben and his friend treated Johnny like a trophy to be won instead of a person.

Now a sequel to the short film has been made.  I really hope we get a third one someday.

Ben and Johnny:  The Dare Project 

[Luckylyn]

There’s a third one!

The Dare Project: A Video Call

[methodwriter85]

The mistake they made is that they cast Emmy Rossum who was the established star and she pretty much overtook the film. I get that they had to recast because Adam Fleming was 30 and Michael Cassidy had moved on to playing adults by that point, but Feature Film Ben did not have the endearing quality that Short Film Ben had. Zach Gilford was great, though. It's just annoying that yet again in a movie about a guy exploring bisexuality his scenes being physical with a girl far outweigh his scenes with a guy. 

[Spartan Girl]

While it was nice that Thor: Love and Thunder confirmed Valkyrie was bi (and that the woman she watched get murdered by Hela was her lover) and Kong is gay, I still feel like the studio stopped Taika Watiti from going further. Valkyrie flirted a little bit with Zeus’s concubines and she showed some interest in Jane, but she didn’t find her queen, which Tessa and Taika said would be her story back when the movie was first announced. Which is a crying shame. Sif was right there!

[Luckylyn]

8 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

The mistake they made is that they cast Emmy Rossum who was the established star and she pretty much overtook the film. I get that they had to recast because Adam Fleming was 30 and Michael Cassidy had moved on to playing adults by that point, but Feature Film Ben did not have the endearing quality that Short Film Ben had. Zach Gilford was great, though. It's just annoying that yet again in a movie about a guy exploring bisexuality his scenes being physical with a girl far outweigh his scenes with a guy. 

I agree feature film Ben was miscast.  He didn’t have the same vulnerable and sweet vibe that the original Ben had.  Emmy’s character in the short film is so briefly there and so expanding her so much for the feature film seemed an odd choice.  

[methodwriter85]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:46 PM, Luckylyn said:

I agree feature film Ben was miscast.  He didn’t have the same vulnerable and sweet vibe that the original Ben had.  Emmy’s character in the short film is so briefly there and so expanding her so much for the feature film seemed an odd choice.  

Again, the reason why they did that is because Emmy Rossum was the most established star but it made zero sense because she essentially becomes the lead character. I didn't want to see a movie about a love triangle. I wanted to see a movie about Johnny and Ben, because that is what the short film was about. The short film sequel (and I guess threequel) seems to get that now.

Anyway, since we're talking short films...here's a sweet little concoction called Connor & Jayden:

It's not perfect- there are audio problems and I thought they could have cut down the scene where Connor asks Jayden out, but it was sweet. The "boys" (who are clearly 20-something) look pretty adorable together and they had a solid chemistry. Connor totally reminds me of the jock type of guy I would have crushed on when I was 17. (He looks more like a track star as opposed to a football player, but whatever.)  Sometimes it's nice to live out that jock fantasy most gay boys have.

If they had edited this down to maybe 15-20 minutes I think it would have been really solid.

The people who made this are hoping to turn this into a t.v. show or full feature and I just kinda hope they avoid the mistake that Dare made.

Edited July 12, 2022 by methodwriter85

[xaxat]

British expats played a major role in the rescue of the soccer team trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand, but this feels a little white savior-ish.

[methodwriter85]

On 8/4/2022 at 11:48 AM, xaxat said:

British expats played a major role in the rescue of the soccer team trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand, but this feels a little white savior-ish.

I fucking knew it as soon as this story happened that any Hollywood adaption would find some way to make it about white people.

[Blergh]

^

At least they kept the kids in the above movie Thai instead of changing their ethnicity. In the movie The Impossible(2012), they recreated the experiences of the Spanish physician Maria Belon and her family  during and after  the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on the Thai coast.  However, they changed the family name to Bennett and nationality to British and cast Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor as the protagonists!

Did the movie makers somehow think the worldwide audience wouldn't have been interested in how this vacationing family had survived being scattered to the wind in injured states and trying to find each other  or cared had they preserved the real-life protagonists' Spanish nationality instead of transforming them into Brits?

Spoiler

Of course, the ending of the movie with the family flying away from the devastation on their way to Singapore underscored an even more frustrating element here- that the surviving tourists would be able to recuperate and rebuild their lives in relative comfort in their own lands while the local survivors had no choice but to stay in their ruined homeland and somehow try to return to normalcy despite scant resources and supplies. Yet the movie barely touched on how it had impacted any of the permanent residents who not only had gone through similar and worse experiences than the tourists but, even beforehand, had had to live with somewhat overwhelmed and limited medical resources and supplies (working in a hospital, I notice these things).

[Raja]

On 8/4/2022 at 8:48 AM, xaxat said:

British expats played a major role in the rescue of the soccer team trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand, but this feels a little white savior-ish.

Well they did what they did and there was no hiding that heroic effort. Taking time to show local Thai's, lead by a visiting Tai American engineer building dams and water pipelines above the rescue site probably added 15 to 20 minutes to the 2 1/2 hour running time

[andromeda331]

17 hours ago, Blergh said:

^

At least they kept the kids in the above movie Thai instead of changing their ethnicity. In the movie The Impossible(2012), they recreated the experiences of the Spanish physician Maria Belon and her family  during and after  the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on the Thai coast.  However, they changed the family name to Bennett and nationality to British and cast Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor as the protagonists!

Did the movie makers somehow think the worldwide audience wouldn't have been interested in how this vacationing family had survived being scattered to the wind in injured states and trying to find each other  or cared had they preserved the real-life protagonists' Spanish nationality instead of transforming them into Brits?

  Hide contents

Of course, the ending of the movie with the family flying away from the devastation on their way to Singapore underscored an even more frustrating element here- that the surviving tourists would be able to recuperate and rebuild their lives in relative comfort in their own lands while the local survivors had no choice but to stay in their ruined homeland and somehow try to return to normalcy despite scant resources and supplies. Yet the movie barely touched on how it had impacted any of the permanent residents who not only had gone through similar and worse experiences than the tourists but, even beforehand, had had to live with somewhat overwhelmed and limited medical resources and supplies (working in a hospital, I notice these things).

I don't know if they thought that far or just didn't and wanted to cast Watts and McGregor. As huge of a fan I am of McGregor, I would have rather watched Maria and her family and maybe a few of the permanent residents. What happened to them afterwards? How long did it take to pick up their lives?  That was such a horrible disaster.

[Blergh]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know if they thought that far or just didn't and wanted to cast Watts and McGregor. As huge of a fan I am of McGregor, I would have rather watched Maria and her family and maybe a few of the permanent residents. What happened to them afterwards? How long did it take to pick up their lives?  That was such a horrible disaster.

I don't see why they couldn't have played these parts as Spaniards (or cast Spanish actors) instead of transforming them into Brits. 

I believe it would take about two years for Dr. Belon to recover from her physical injuries (but I'm not sure about her husband's and offspring's recuperation beyond the fact the four of them HAVE survived).Ironically, Dr. Belon appears to be have been more horrified by the local Thais loss of life than either her fictional counterpart or the moviemakers were.

[Hiyo]

Funny enough, Dr. Belón was the one who chose Miss Watts to play her in the movie.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Funny enough, Dr. Belón was the one who chose Miss Watts to play her in the movie.

Really? That is hilarious. I guess we all have our dreams who would play us in a movie. I wonder who picked McGregor to play her husband Belón or her husband. If it was me I'd pick him too to play my husband. Then rehearse a lot together. You know to get the role right.

Edited August 7, 2022 by andromeda331

[Blergh]

On 8/7/2022 at 10:00 AM, Hiyo said:

Funny enough, Dr. Belón was the one who chose Miss Watts to play her in the movie.

But would she have preferred for Miss Watts to have attempted playing her as a Spaniard instead of transforming her into a British woman?

[Hiyo]

From what I have read, it seems like she really didn't care one way or another.

[Guest]

On 8/6/2022 at 6:19 AM, Blergh said:

^

At least they kept the kids in the above movie Thai instead of changing their ethnicity. In the movie The Impossible(2012), they recreated the experiences of the Spanish physician Maria Belon and her family  during and after  the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on the Thai coast.  However, they changed the family name to Bennett and nationality to British and cast Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor as the protagonists!

Did the movie makers somehow think the worldwide audience wouldn't have been interested in how this vacationing family had survived being scattered to the wind in injured states and trying to find each other  or cared had they preserved the real-life protagonists' Spanish nationality instead of transforming them into Brits?

  Hide contents

Of course, the ending of the movie with the family flying away from the devastation on their way to Singapore underscored an even more frustrating element here- that the surviving tourists would be able to recuperate and rebuild their lives in relative comfort in their own lands while the local survivors had no choice but to stay in their ruined homeland and somehow try to return to normalcy despite scant resources and supplies. Yet the movie barely touched on how it had impacted any of the permanent residents who not only had gone through similar and worse experiences than the tourists but, even beforehand, had had to live with somewhat overwhelmed and limited medical resources and supplies (working in a hospital, I notice these things).

I think it would have been better to cast a Spaniard but functionally there was very little different in the story. Either way it was a white European family surviving tragedy while vacationing in another country. Which I imagine is why Dr. Belon was fine with it. Even if Penelope Cruz had been cast the movie would have the exact same issues.

[Bastet]

On 8/4/2022 at 8:48 AM, xaxat said:

British expats played a major role in the rescue of the soccer team trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand, but this feels a little white savior-ish.

I watched it, and it wasn't as bad as I feared on that front, but - yeah.  It sounds like the upcoming limited series on Netflix, Thai Cave Rescue, may be a better offering:

Quote

The Netflix series, while also a fictionalized retelling of real events, may present a different kind of authenticity. It was directed by Thailand’s Nattawut ‘Baz’ Poonpiriya (“One for the Road,” “Bad Genius”) and Thai American Kevin Tancharoen (“The Brothers Sun,” “The Book of Boba Fett,” “Warrior”). And it is the only filmic version that has been allowed access to the 12 boy members of the Wild Boars soccer team. Filming took place at the homes of the real boys and Tham Luang itself.
...
“ ‘Thai Cave Rescue’ is the first opportunity for audiences worldwide to see the Tham Luang story in a new and more emotional light — centering the perspectives of the 12 Wild Boars, Coach Eak, and heroes like Saman ‘Ja Sam’ Gunan, whose lives beyond the operation remain largely outside the public spotlight,” said Poonpiriya in a prepared statement.

“For us, ‘Thai Cave Rescue’ is ultimately a story about family and what we decide family should be,” said showrunner, writer and executive producer Gunn. “From the boys’ own parents and guardians to thousands of local and international rescuers joining the mission, this was the entire world coming together as one big family. We intended for the show to cover not just the rescue operation but also what the Wild Boars went through inside the cave, and we believe our focus on achieving authenticity — from characters and languages to locations and emotions — will shine through.”

[possibilities]

The choice to center the narrative on the rescuers vs to make it about the people who are trapped is definitely a choice being made based on point of view of the people making the production. Either one could be exciting, suspenseful, emotional, etc. So I agree that where the focus is centered is telling about the people making the show.

Showing both angles and bringing them together could also be really tense and moving, so there's really no reason at all to make a white savior choice rather than going another way.

Edited August 11, 2022 by possibilities

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, possibilities said:

The choice to center the narrative on the rescuers vs to make it about the people who are trapped is definitely a choice being made based on point of view of the people making the production. Either one could be exciting, suspenseful, emotional, etc. So I agree that where the focus is centered is telling about the people making the show.

Showing both angles and bringing them together could also be really tense and moving, so there's really no reason at all to make a white savior choice rather than going another way.

Have you had a chance to watch the movie? From the preview alone it does look like spend a good chunk of it with the kids in the cave. The preview is setting up the plot so the fact that it focuses on the rescuers makes sense. The reviews make it sound like it does highlight the locals. I’m curious how focused it is on the rescuers because I was interested in watching but won’t bother if it is purely a white savior story. 

[Bastet]

17 hours ago, Dani said:

From the preview alone it does look like spend a good chunk of it with the kids in the cave.

Not even close.  The combined total time spent on the kids once in the cave is probably not even ten minutes.

There were so many people involved in the brainstorming and rescue, both in the cave and above ground, so to condense this story into a movie is going to necessitate leaving out altogether or simplifying the roles of many.  And Howard left in more Thai characters - and resulting subtitles - than my cynical self expected.  But it also can't be denied most of the people he cut/condensed were Thai, while the white characters were centered.

I think it's worth a watch, I just also think the upcoming Netflix series seems to be a better telling of this story give the filmmakers' stated goals and how those compare to the problems with this film.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Bastet

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Bastet said:

Not even close.  The combined total time spent on the kids once in the cave is probably not even ten minutes.

Thanks. That is good to know. I might still watch it but it won’t be high priority particularly with the Netflix series coming out.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 6/18/2022 at 12:46 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I was kind of excited about this being a diverse retelling of Persuasion.  But, the 2 principle main actors of the story were white anyway.

So, it really feels like the movie wanted to advertise that as being so progressive and diverse, but really, the movie is no more diverse than a typical Hallmark movie.  In a typical Hallmark movie, the two principle actors are 90% of the time white, and there is usually a Black best friend.  Exact same thing happened here.  I was really unimpressed that the casting ended up being so generic.

On a positive note....... Cosmo Jarvis was very swoon worthy.  

[angora]

How was Henry Golding as William Elliot? I love him, but the trailers have made me wary of seeing it.