posted
I am the only one pissed off to find out that bean is cast as a white kid? as far as i remember bean is black. why......
Posts: 1 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Bean's ethnicity, as far as can be determined provided his interesting genetic situation, was Greek; though, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him from having a darker complexion.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just be happy you get to watch the obnoxious little kid from Hannah Montana get murdered. Good times.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean is always represented as sort of ambiguous, but he is implied to be white-ish in the first Shadow book or two. And then implied to be, if not black, then notably not-totally-white, in the later books in the series.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dan is correct, his appearance is ambiguously Mediterranean, he passed well enough in Greece, and in Rwanda.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bernardini: I am the only one pissed off to find out that bean is cast as a white kid? as far as i remember bean is black. why......
I believe in Shadow Puppets Bean clarifies that he is half Greek, half African: to Greeks he looks "rather African" and to Africans he looks "rather Greek." This is open to interpretation, but the casting directors probably didn't want to limit themselves to only half Greek, half African actors (can you think of any in the right age group that would also portray the character of Bean well?)
The more blatant race-lift in the casting is Ben Kingsley as the Maori Mazer.
Race-changing in film adaptations is only offensive when a single group becomes overrepresented, or a significant part of the story is compromised, to the point of leading to unfortunate implications. In this case, however, the cast for Ender's Game is still diverse, even if not every character has the exact same ethnicity as they do in the book.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to complain about changing character ethnicity, then complain about the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
The more blatant race-lift in the casting is Ben Kingsley as the Maori Mazer.
I'm bummed about this one. It's not like Maori actors don't exist-- the one off the top of my head I can think of is the guy who played Boba Fett in the Star Wars Prequels. Insert joke here about the Prequels being a bad for people's careers.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Ender's Game teasers, it is just four of the army emblems. I do find it curious that the army symbols are generically colored, I hope they didn't abandon the color schemes all together.
Because the books just won't shut up about how he has facial tattoos. And yes, this is a very definite and affable answer to the issue of Ben Kingsley not being Maori.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, so they take a non-maori actor and have him play a guy with tā moko all over his face
thankfully for the movie, today's american audiences are as of yet mostly ignorant as to why this is profoundly offensive so they'll still get away with it
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was ignorant. After reading a bit, I understand that it's pretty important to some Maori for outsiders not to imitate or appropriate tā moko.
Does that definitely extend to actors with temporary/fake tā moko? That isn't very clear to me from what I've been able to find.
If so, is it similarly offensive to create a fictional Maori character complete with tā moko in the first place? If not, then where does the specific offense lie in having an actor portray that character? In other words, since an actor isn't exactly appropriating the culture but merely trying to represent it in a fictional context, is this not just about cultural misappropriation but also about a ritual significance of particular markings?
Given the existence of kirituhi which is apparently not considered offensive, I do have to wonder if the offense is tied to particular patterns or symbols, and thus: What if Kingsley and others involved said it was kirituhi, not tā moko? What if it's meant to represent tā moko but the actual markings are kirituhi?
I wasn't of the impression that it's generally considered offensive for actors to play cross-culture*, so I am curious about how this works from a Maori perspective. (Of course I'm also wondering if it makes sense, generally, to respect a culture's internal view to the point that it dictates external actions.)
*I understand it's generally agreed to be offensive when actors play ugly stereotypes or distortions of other cultures, though.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the book say that Rakham has tā moko on his face? I can't remember. If it does, then it wouldn't be offensive in the book, so why would it be in the film.
If it's not in the book, it seems perfectly reasonable for Rakham, a warrior, to have them. In fact, it helps establish the characters ethnicity as Kingsley is decidedly not Maori, but needs to play one in the movie.
But I'm willing to listen as to why this is offensive.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For pretty much the same reason it would be offensive if Rackham was written as an asian man, and we had Kingsley playing asian Rackham in yellowface.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That hardly seems comparable. Were you similarly offended when Robert Downey Jr used skin toners so as to look black in Tropic Thunder? How about Ben Kingsley using an accent to sound Indian in Gandhi?
Further, these are tattoos. It's not like he's playing a Jew and so they gave him an artificially large nose just to press the point.
I don't know how prevalent tā moko is today amongst the Maori, but people in the US certainly don't think about them when you mention New Zealand, so it's not a "Hey! You need to know this guy is Maori, here's an easy way for the audience to realize this!" It also seems entirely plausible that Rackham would have them, and it makes for a visually memorable character. At least to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were you similarly offended when Robert Downey Jr used skin toners so as to look black in Tropic Thunder? How about Ben Kingsley using an accent to sound Indian in Gandhi?
1. Tropic Thunder was deliberately satirizing the offensiveness of blackface but was still problematic.
2. Ben Kingsley trying to sound Indian is not offensive to me at all for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
quote:That hardly seems comparable.
It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kingsley is part Indian, so yes Asian, but not Pacific Islander. And you'll have to indulge my idiocy, but I don't see a substantial difference between employing an accent that is commonly found in a group of people, and employing a visual medium like tattoos or clothing to increase people's willful suspension of disbelief.
I get that perhaps they should have found an actual Maori to play a Maori, but since they did not, I don't have a problem with trying to make who they did find as convincingly Maori as reasonably possible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Nor is he a genius space fighter from the latter half of the 21st century. The role that he is playing, however is. Actors often take on symbols while playing characters that they have no right to in real life. Heck, I acted in my Catholic high school's production of Fiddler on the Roof, despite not actually being a turn of the century Jewish-Russian peasant. I don't think you've successfully made the case that this is any different. I don't actually see that you've tried to, actually.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is that I have no problem with Kingsley, born Krishna Pandit Bhanji, playing an Indian.
He is not, however, a Maori, so there's a problem there. It's him essentially dressing up as and playing a race that he is not, complete with the appropriation of moko.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Nor is he a genius space fighter from the latter half of the 21st century.
Not gonna lie, this is an off-putting comparison. Genius space fighters from the latter half of the 21st century are not a marginalized group that often find themselves represented by persons appropriating and playing their race; they aren't even a real thing. They don't exist. There is no longstanding practice reinforcing glass ceilings against genius space fighter performers. There are no real people in this group who find themselves passed by for a role because writers would rather change the race of a majority role, or just have someone play dress-up in their features. No young Genius-Space-Fighter has to look at the screen and see that they've yet again had actual genius space fighters passed up to give the roles to someone who can just dress as them (or be given their facial features and skin tone with makeup, if that were applicable).
There are also, it might be noted, no more turn of the century jewish russian peasants left around these days to note that they are being passed by in a patterned fashion in favor of other non-marginalized actors, who will instead dress as them to portray them.
Maori, on the other hand, are a people that exist.
Race appropriation in television and movies has a discriminatory impact on underrepresented cultural communities and actors from those communities. We've started to figure out that it's pretty tacky and problem-ridden. It's almost completely gotten rid of blackface, making it too much of a poisonous thing for a film to dare attempting. Yellowface is not far behind, though it's worth noting that Cloud Atlas managed to sneak in a breathtakingly stupid last hurrah for the practice. Like I said, people are probably going to give Maoriface a pass, because we're pretty ignorant here about things like whether a temporary tattoo being made into moko which isn't tikanga Maori (making it one of the rare cases of appropriation I will pretty much categorically grant as a terrible faux pas) isn't, uh, quite offensive. We're also really good at coming up with very self-convincing explanations, like how there must not have been a good enough selection of actors from x, y, or z.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: if they'd cast Kingsley and changed the story so that Rackham is an Indian, what would you think? Good? Bad?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
It sounds like it would be much harder/impossible for a Maori, particularly one bearing the cultural symbol being represented, to be given the opportunity to play an Indian man. And if you're fiction takes advantage of a minority culture as a point of curiosity, then you should cast from it.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having just attended and reported on a Kiwi film festival in Europe, I've met several people recently who would probably comment that the availability of Maori actors (particularly racially mixed actors) is quite good.
Now, I am not an expert on how many very professional actors are available in New Zealand, but it would be hard to argue that there isn't a well established casting system there. The producers might have tried. But of course, as a I said a long time ago about this casting decision: this was about money, and there is definitely no Maori actor that is bankable as a Hollywood star (bankable in the sense of being a household name, and reason to see a film).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules. I think some of this has to do with the subject matter of the film.
It's normally okay for a non-Jewish person to play a Jewish person, for example, although I think there would be examples where such a thing would be less okay. I think a Jewish person character in space would be more okay than a Jewish person character in a context expressing more sensitive aspect of Jewish oppression.
Similarly, we are pretty vague across bounderies providing people look the same or similar. A person from India can play a character from any country around India in which people look Indian. Again, this is probably dependent on the film. In America, a Chinese person can play a Japanese or Korean person, particularly in an American context. Is this acceptable everywhere and in every film?
Religious bounderies come into play, too. We usually are pretty relaxed about Christians playing other types of Christians. But in a film where religion is important, is it okay for Christian to play a Muslim, or a Muslim to play a Hindu?
What about cultural things? Is it okay for a English person to play a Scottish or Irish person? Is it okay for an American person with English heritage to play a Scottish or Irish person? Clearly in lots of situations this is fine. In others, less so.
posted
Race being a social construct anyway, as opposed to a biological category, it's sometimes hard for me to understand why people stake so much importance on an actor "really being" a member of the race he/she is portraying. If the actor doesn't look like a member of that race, that's a separate and legitimate problem. Also if dressing up as that race has a problematic history, as with black and yellow face, that could also be a good reason to take offense.
As a side point, I don't have any problem with Downey in Tropic Thunder. Humor needs to be able to push that sort of boundary.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I find the casting to be unfortunate, but at the same time it isn't as if Ben Kingsley is white from the suburbs of North Carolina. I'm willing to forgive it as long as the rest of the movie is good.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
Or maybe (SPOILER: actually yes!) the people vocally upset with this, which you would like to belittle, generally have a better understanding of how movies get made and financed, and are rightfully upset with the patterns of marginalization.
The movie industry doesn't just fill race tokens with more bankable races (usually white), it actively goes to lengths to swap out minorities. Whatever makes the movie have more mass appeal, right? Like how the real-life leader of the MIT Blackjack team, Jeff Ma, was reborn as "Ben Campbell" in the movie 21. And the issue is a reliable pattern seen across multiple forms of media, like television, and so does not get to get explained away with a "oh you must just have zero understanding of how movies get made, quit getting your panties bunched up hur lul."
In fact, most people who get their 'panties bunched' up about this, in your eyes and prescribed words, are doing so precisely because of awareness of the incentives and cycles at play here in this and other media elements. I guess it makes it much more comforting to explain as simply a complaint generated by ignorance, though — and that's rather idyllically a reinforcement of my prediction about what you can still get away with, and why.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Personally, I try to form a mob every time a find out about a woman playing Peter Pan.
Or when Romans have British Accents. (Or every ancient European except Spain.)
I picket every time I hear about a church doing a nativity play, unless they happen to find Jews to play the role of Mary and family.
In fact, has Jesus ever been filmed as a middle eastern person?
I'm glad you are ready and rearing to fight against the very real social issue of the marginalization of Peter Pan, Roman Legionnaires, and Team Nativity.
and now, a goodpost™
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I was ignorant. After reading a bit, I understand that it's pretty important to some Maori for outsiders not to imitate or appropriate tā moko.
Does that definitely extend to actors with temporary/fake tā moko? That isn't very clear to me from what I've been able to find.
If so, is it similarly offensive to create a fictional Maori character complete with tā moko in the first place? If not, then where does the specific offense lie in having an actor portray that character? In other words, since an actor isn't exactly appropriating the culture but merely trying to represent it in a fictional context, is this not just about cultural misappropriation but also about a ritual significance of particular markings?
The real issue here is that Kingsley is playing dress-up as another race. And in a way which hits all the tokenism issues, with them making sure to really play up the maori-ness as they see fit, which in this case is having Ben in full Maori face tattoo. Probably also darkening his skin up as much as they can get away with. This is like if another movie came out where you have to have someone of native american ancestry, but the movie wants some name-brand talent and tells itself "oh it's totally fine if we cast some non-native in this" so they get Ben and bronze his skin up and the story and design guys were like "oh dude, so like, let's totally play up his indian-ness, like, so he'll like, wear a headdress in it with feathers so it's all like yeaaa cool our movie has a badass indian in it. Like and not even just feathers let's get our design guys to come up with something that looks like way native warrior. YEAH."
Nominally, the continuation of practices like this should make someone leery. What really makes the practice a problem, however, is a cycle I can oversimplify like this:
1. here in america, movies have an abundance of roles for white people, because hey, cultural majority (and, at least until recently, numerical majority). You get ten, twenty, fifty times more roles as a white person everywhere all the time always. The big names fit the bill appropriately; you have a far greater chance and opportunity to succeed as a white actor than as a black or asian or any other sort of actor, because you are automatically "niche." Far more white actors succeed, and they usually have the leading roles all to themselves, because "niche" actors often find themselves in supporting roles. Big name big time actors aren't "niche." But any minority actor who wants to become a big name big time actor already has to hammer through a ceiling imposed by this. It rarely happens, and progress on that front is slow in coming. Lucy Liu is still surprised that she got a role not in some (or all) significant ways typecast or where she has to be 'dragon-lady-ey,' where she is not there specifically to play an asian, she is there to play a character. a person. Not an exotic token. Even for her, these opportunities are few and far between. In 2013.
2. Actors of various cultural communities and race appearance which keeps them in these niche-lands also can't rely on the field providing a proportionate opportunity for them to bust into non-niche, leading, big-name roles. They can actually usually expect the system to work against them. Mako Iwamatsu detailed what it was like for him as an actor: "Asian-American actors have never been treated as full-time actors. We’re always hired as part-timers. That is, producers call us when they need us for only race-specific roles. If a part was seen as too “demanding,” that part often went to a non-Asian." There's no real field to succeed in if you're <insert "niche" here> and a movie comes out based on source material specifically with roles about your race and culture, but (as was the case in TLA) they switch all the leading roles to white. Or they cast some white person as you after concluding that there wasn't enough leading talent from that community (odd this happens when you're never given lead roles). Or as is so often the case it's a combination of pulling from majority talent and getting name-brand names in there to get people in seats. Sure, there's a wide selection of acclaimed maori talent but BEN KINGSLEY will put people in seats, so we went with Kingsley and just put your hoodoo tattoos on him, good enough. Who wants some nobody?
3. Cycle loops on itself. You don't get leading roles or become leading names, so that tomorrow's producers can say the exact same things: "well, there's no star talent in that community." "well the people who draw viewers aren't .."
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam: if they'd cast Kingsley and changed the story so that Rackham is an Indian, what would you think? Good? Bad?
Also bad. At least now the maori don't have people playing dress-up maori warrior for cultural tokenism, so you can cynically say it's marginally better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules.
I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media. ~My asian friends~ have talked at length about how their portrayal in media mad themselves feel niche lessers from a long history of seeing themselves only as supporting characters with heavily prescribed typecast habits. A few even ended their careers in theater and acting because of the relentless marginalization.
We're just not yet at the point where we should be talking ourselves into a narrative of how equal society should mean this stuff shouldn't matter.
Though, I guess, many people totally will.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
quote:Oh look . . . another pointless cause to rally around.
Well that's one way to address the slew of points that Samprimary made. I'm glad we have some good dialogue going.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media.
Could you re-state this sentence in a more understandable way, Sam?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tattoo doesn't really suit Kingsley's face. I feel like Ender is gonna meet him and burst out laughing.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Sam is wrong that movie companies regularly state, "This movie needs a marketable star" in lieu of what the author intended.
Heck, Mr. Card specifically mentions wanting to use a black actor for Graff and movie producers (from a previous attempt) resisting the idea by saying no black actor can carry a movie. Whereupon Mr. Card used Will Smith as a counter-example.
Refusing to stand up to these sorts of producers is a form of tacit racism, even if you feel it's justified so as to make sure the movie is made in the first place.
I wasn't there when this particular movie was cast. They may or may not have made an effort to diversify the cast beyond the actual results which we will all see in a few months. I do know trying to remain faithful to every ethnicity, and every age, and casting a talented actor from each one would have been exceedingly difficult. I would call it the casting accomplishment of the last decade easily.
That they made concessions in this department is sad, I really do feel that way. But I am willing to enjoy a movie primarily if each character is treated with respect, each actor acquits themselves well, and a good story is told.
I also admire movies that attempt to be brave, and discard old incorrect ideologies about what a movie must sacrifice in order to make money.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad they made Starbuck a girl. That'll go a long way to promoting equality among the races.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Race being a social construct anyway, as opposed to a biological category, it's sometimes hard for me to understand why people stake so much importance on an actor "really being" a member of the race he/she is portraying.
This. Without the caveats.
Sam, your points are an accurate description of a predominantly "white" culture and how this matter of fact can make it hard for a person of a distinctively other ethnicity to be successful as an American actor. This will change with time. Slowly, but it will happen. In fact, it's already happening, perhaps to a far greater extent here than in other countries because we are the most culturally diverse country in the world. Consider mainstream black actors today as a prime example. Morgan Freeman is in just as many crappy blockbusters as the next white guy.
The way I see it, this is acting we're talking about here. Art. Entertainment. This is nothing like segregation in schools or paying women less than men to do the same job, or any other form of actual discrimination. Producers and directors, by and large, on an individual basis, are not doing anything morally reprehensible by choosing an actor of one ethnicity to represent a character of a different ethnicity, and I don't see any good reason for someone to be offended by that choice. I can see not liking the choice, and I'd respect that position. But taking offense? I don't get that.
Which isn't to say I'm not willing to consider what else you might have to say about it, so please elaborate if you'd like.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Morgan Freeman is in just as many crappy blockbusters as the next white guy.
Context of grammar? I didn't know Morgan Freeman was white!?! Talk about blackface. . . .
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: The way I see it, this is acting we're talking about here. Art. Entertainment. This is nothing like segregation in schools or paying women less than men to do the same job, or any other form of actual discrimination. Producers and directors, on an individual basis, are not doing anything morally reprehensible by choosing an actor of one ethnicity to represent a character of a different ethnicity, and I don't see any good reason for someone to be offended by that choice. I can see not liking the choice, and I'd respect that position. But taking offense? I don't get that.
A cause for offense? I don't think so. A catalyst for debate about adequate depiction of race? Why not?
Both sides have a point. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. But acting is an art. Is a thoughtful, sensitive portrayal of someone from another race or culture acceptable? Is this different from a straight person playing a homosexual on television?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both sides have a point. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. But acting is an art. Is a thoughtful, sensitive portrayal of someone from another race or culture acceptable? Is this different from a straight person playing a homosexual on television?
Yes, I believe it is. And no, it's quite similar, and equally unoffensive in my opinion.
I get cultural sensitivity to representation with negative connotation. I also understand and agree with promoting awareness of great minority actors being overlooked for roles they'd be great in and ethnically appropriate for because a white actor was chosen instead.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
nobody is supposing that Kingsley is donning Maoriface with malicious intent. intent is also not a magic shield against the effects of marginalizing media casting. nobody can say "oh i doubt Mickey Rooney was donning a little oriental hat and yellowface to belittle Asians" and have that be relevant, any more so than tasking Kingsley with good intent vindication is relevant to the awareness I'm promoting.
if it makes you cringe and reject as "nitpicky," good. i expect it to be uncomfortable to confront, and easy to reject. for now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, I like the point about straight actors portraying gays. There are also a million little distinctions we can draw in the "race" category:
Is it bad for a Native American actor to portray a Native American character from a different tribe?
Is it bad for an Indian actor to portray an Indian character of a different caste?
Is it bad for a mixed-race actor who can "pass" for white to portray a character of their non-white ancestry? (Think of Keanu Reeves playing a Chinese character. Or for a less ridiculous example, Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider.)
Is it bad for an African American actor to portray a Jamaican character?
The fact that Kingsley is himself a minority actor also complicates the issue in the present case.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So many interesting posts, and he picks the least interesting one to reply to.
yes indeed, that was the one i.. sorry, Hhe responded to. I'm.. sorry, he is on his phone in a boat at sea, and it was the last post at the time he started constructing a response, and it had the most straightforward deconstruction. easy enough for him to respond to on a phone.
he also shouldn't be faulted in any middling easy for lack of effort or response in this thread, of course.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I get cultural sensitivity to representation with negative connotation. I also understand and agree with promoting awareness of great minority actors being overlooked for roles they'd be great in and ethnically appropriate for because a white actor was chosen instead.
A role that YOU think they'd be great in, you mean. Seriously, come on. How many Maori actors are there at Kingsley's caliber? Mana the Polynesian Warrior? Would he be a better choice?
"So . . there's this movie. It looks great, it's about some kind of game. It has that kid from Hugo in it. Oh, and Harrison Ford's in it too. And Mana the Polynesian Warrior. He's an awesome actor; haven't you heard?"
ANYWAY . . . Kingsley isn't white. His ancestry is mixed: Kenyan, Indian, British, possibly Jewish at some point. . . .
So, you're saying that people of mixed, one might say homogenized race, can't play characters that fit certain racial / ethnic profiles? What kind of roles can he play? A role from a book that says "we didn't really know where he was from . . . he was just . . . a little brown?"
posted
Now what I really do find offensive is in a cartoon like Aladdin where everyone is of the same race, but only the evil people have the accent.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Context of grammar? I didn't know Morgan Freeman was white!?! Talk about blackface. . . .
