Thread: Perception of skin color in TV Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030536
Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on
:
Quite a while ago I watched the SyFy's (I hate the new name so much...) TV series The Expanse based on a series of books with the same title. It interested me enough to read the books themselves. Right in the first 30 pages I saw something which unsettled me. I kept it boggled inside me until now.
In the first moments of the book (and TV series) it is established that the protagonist has a personal relationship of sorts with the spacecraft's navigator. The thing is - in the TV series the navigator is a conventionally attractive WHITE blond woman, in the book she is of Nigerian descent. Additionally not all that conventionally attractive (ok, I seem to remember her as such but I seem not to find proof of that in a short examination of the book itself).
I completely understand differences between TV/movie and book versions, I mean you often can't reproduce certain things on the screen. I'm fine with erasing characters, even changing them to accommodate plot development. However in this particular case I see no reason why the protagonist's initial sexual partner has had her race changed. The character is minor, a few scenes and then death, I can't find a valid reason why in narrative there had to be a change to white.
I mean after 8 years of Obama, isn't it ok in the US to have characters whose skin happens to be black? A decade ago and earlier, I understand, the network would be afraid that casual racism would do something to the ratings, but now?
It's not even that much of a big deal, I mean this character is alive for literally 30 pages and somewhat insignificant amount of screen time. For me it was significant, if such a small role that was meant to go to a Nigerian went to a white actress (who I'm sure is an amazing person and a great actor), then what happens with all the other ones?
I seem to find a lot of TV with black actors, some shows centered around them, then a show without thinking replaces them. Is it a completely unfounded racism as I dread to think? Does it happen a lot and I'm too ignorant to see it?
[ 07. October 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: mrWaters ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Syfy has done this sort of thing before. An even more egregious example was their "whitewashing" of LeGuin's Earthsea.
As if to illustrate why SyFy may feel the need to do this sort of thing, apparently some people on the internet feel like Netflix's Luke Cage series is offensive because it doesn't have enough white people in it.
There seems to be a certain demographic out there who feels that not being catered to is a form of insult.
[ 07. October 2016, 17:57: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Sometimes there are reasons why a part that's originally (in a book, say) written for a non-white actor is played by a white actor. A lot of the time, however, those reasons are very poor.
Gemma Arterton in _The Girl with all the Gifts_ plays the teacher, which is explicitly a role for a black woman. The role of the Girl is for a white girl, but is taken by a black actor, but there aren't that many substantial roles for black actors in films, and specifically UK productions (David Harewood was saying as much on R4 this morning) that I think the producers should have tried much harder.
So yes. There are plenty of black actors, and if the role is for a black actor, pick one of them.
Moreover, white writers need to remember that they can try harder at writing more diverse characters. Again, British TV drama is, with a few notable exceptions, very white.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is not only the TV and movie people. Even the book cover designers would whitewash characters. Older editions of Wizard of Earthsea show the title character as a white person. They don't even have the excuse of Hollywood, which can argue that movies and TV are so very expensive that they have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
The success of Luke Cage is actually a very good sign that this is changing.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think sometimes a series is produced on the basis of giving certain actors important roles, and other actors a chance in minor roles. It is not always based on wanting to perfectly present the book series.
It is a pity, and it rarely produces a good series. Sometimes it does because the actors are really good and make it work. Or they bring out a great story because the original is so good, even a poor version works well.
But yes, characters should be played by appropriate actors. basic ethnicity should be respected - the author wrote that character in that way, so they should be portrayed in that way.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I really don't understand why someone wouldn't appreciate a book / movie / tv show simply because its characters were of a different race. Women and minorities are used to being entertained by overwhelmingly white male characters. But I'm brown and female, so I would say that, wouldn't I?
More tellingly, white people don't seem to have any problem being entertained by people of colour as long as they "know their place" ... sports.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Syfy has done this sort of thing before. An even more egregious example was their "whitewashing" of LeGuin's Earthsea.
That is fucked up, especially as LeGuin chose the colours for a purpose and 50 years later it is undone. 50 years when we are supposed to be a more integrated. accepting society.
quote:
As if to illustrate why SyFy may feel the need to do this sort of thing, apparently some people on the internet feel like Netflix's Luke Cage series is offensive because it doesn't have enough white people in it.
There seems to be a certain demographic out there who feels that not being catered to is a form of insult.
It is set in HARLEM!
ISTM, the industry has three* problems. One is that not enough parts are written for people of colour, many of those roles that are written show a stereotype and that generic, non-colour specific roles are assumed to be white.
*Yeah, more than two, really. But these will do for a start.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Older editions of Wizard of Earthsea show the title character as a white person.
So, incorrectly, does the current cover of The Dispossessed (which confusingly, seems to show Richard Branson).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
More tellingly, white people don't seem to have any problem being entertained by people of colour as long as they "know their place" ... sports.
Film and telly as well. Most roles for people of colour have fit roles that are either stereotypical or of limited representation. This is why I support casting people of colour in roles written for white people.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So yes. There are plenty of black actors, and if the role is for a black actor, pick one of them.
And if the role is for an actor where race isn't really a factor (and there are plenty of those), pick the black actor sometimes.
For Earthsea, Ursula le Guin was quite specific about her choices for the skin tones of her characters, so it should be respected (and wasn't). On the other hand, consider something like Beverly Cleary's Ramona books (chosen purely because I've been reading them with my son). There's nothing race-specific about the characters. They are written as white, but there's no reason the story wouldn't work on TV just as well with black actresses as Beezus and Ramona.
IOW, pick black actors for black roles, but not only for black roles.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Older editions of Wizard of Earthsea show the title character as a white person.
So, incorrectly, does the current cover of The Dispossessed (which confusingly, seems to show Richard Branson).
I know the person in charge of the Masterworks series. I'll have a word next time I see him.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And if the role is for an actor where race isn't really a factor (and there are plenty of those), pick the black actor sometimes.
To follow up on this, just because an author described a character in a particular way doesn't mean a TV adapation necessarily has to be faithful to that - it depends on whether the character's ethnicity is essential.
Suppose an author is imagining a character, and in his head, the person is white. As the author writes descriptive passages, it's likely that the character's skin tone will enter in to the descriptions. That doesn't mean that the character has to be white.
If, however, it's essential to the plot that the person is descended from generations of Vikings, it's probably necessary to make them look white and blond.
[ 07. October 2016, 19:33: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
IOW, pick black actors for black roles, but not only for black roles.
Yes and no, for reasons most recently examined in Hell...
There's absolutely no reason why Cop#1 or Gardener#2 or Lawyer#3 can't be black, white, Hispanic, male, female, or old, for that matter. And there is a thing that if a crowd is 50% female, it's seen as overwhelmingly female.
I do think that for more prominent roles, the writers should take account of the race/gender of the actor playing them. Certainly, the actor playing them will interpret the role differently, and the audience will perceive that role differently too.
And even in the most extreme of circumstances - for example, Shakespeare, where the script is more or less set in stone - then that will still come into play. A black Cleopatra and a white Marc Antony brings out different themes due to our current contexts.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So yes. There are plenty of black actors, and if the role is for a black actor, pick one of them.
And if the role is for an actor where race isn't really a factor (and there are plenty of those), pick the black actor sometimes.
For Earthsea, Ursula le Guin was quite specific about her choices for the skin tones of her characters, so it should be respected (and wasn't). On the other hand, consider something like Beverly Cleary's Ramona books (chosen purely because I've been reading them with my son). There's nothing race-specific about the characters. They are written as white, but there's no reason the story wouldn't work on TV just as well with black actresses as Beezus and Ramona.
IOW, pick black actors for black roles, but not only for black roles.
The Ramonaverse also set in fifties era suburban Oregon, but the people who made the dreadful film adaptation saw no need to stick to that.
I grew up in a 1970's San Francisco suburb-- very diverse. The white neighborhood lived next to the Portuguese neighbor, who lived next to the black neighbor, who lived next to the blended white/ Mexican family. All of their kids totally behaved like the residents of Klickitat(?) Street.
So, yeah, make the Quimbys black, make Henry Huggins Henry Hernandez, and set the whole thing in San Francisco's Geneva District, circa 1970( it was a quiet family-type area at the time) and just cast local kids for the schoolmates. Could not be mor easy! You don't have to hunt down diversity, just work where it already is!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I do think that for more prominent roles, the writers should take account of the race/gender of the actor playing them. Certainly, the actor playing them will interpret the role differently, and the audience will perceive that role differently too.
This presupposes there are behavioural characterises inherited from one's skin colour. There are not.
This presupposes that all book, television and film productions are thoroughly grounded in reality. They are not.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I would love for somebody to do an "experimental" production (whether on stage or TV) in which casting would be done in the following way: the race of the actor playing the part would be filled randomly. Imagine a hat in which the various races would be represented in proportion to their prevalence in the country. So you first declare which role is being filled. Then reach into the hat and pull out a slip. Whatever race is listed on that slip, the actor must be cast from that race. It would be deemed irrelevant what the role was.
Obviously, there would likely be some strange character combinations (especially within families!), but quality actors filling the role would then be challenged to make it work--to try to get it to the point where the audience no longer pays attention to the race of the character.
That, of course, is the experiment part: could the actors pull it off? Shakespearean plays would be ideal for the experiment. I would expect, in the first act the audience would be distracted by the "unusual" racial mixture, but could the actors be convincing and get the audience to accept (or, rather, pay no attention) to that by the end of the play?
[ 07. October 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I do think that for more prominent roles, the writers should take account of the race/gender of the actor playing them. Certainly, the actor playing them will interpret the role differently, and the audience will perceive that role differently too.
This presupposes there are behavioural characterises inherited from one's skin colour. There are not.
This presupposes that all book, television and film productions are thoroughly grounded in reality. They are not.
Sigh. We did all this in Hell.
There are, in some circumstances, ways which we behave because of our age, gender, class, and yes, race. I know you don't agree with that, but I think you're very wrong.
And no, it doesn't matter if the setting is 'fantasy' or not: it simply freights a different set of circumstances and behaviours.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
They do this, in theater. I saw a superb production of Sense and Sensibility last weekend. The older Dashwood sisters were white, but the little sister Margaret was an Asian actress, and there was a black woman playing a supporting role.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
That, of course, is the experiment part: could the actors pull it off? Shakespearean plays would be ideal for the experiment. I would expect, in the first act the audience would be distracted by the "unusual" racial mixture, but could the actors be convincing and get the audience to accept (or, rather, pay no attention) to that by the end of the play?
Shakespeare has been adapted the hell out of and still kept the story alive. Mercutio, in the 1996 Romeo + Juliet is black. No dialogue is changed for that. Does not need to be.
I am not saying race, and its attendant issues, should never be considered, just that it needn't always be a focus simple because a person of colour is in a role.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sigh. We did all this in Hell.
Not satisfactorily.
quote:
There are, in some circumstances, ways which we behave because of our age, gender, class, and yes, race.
Some circumstance, not all. And there are many, many, many departures from reality even in "serious" drama that don't exist in reality yet are nothing more than geek talking points. The rest of the public don't care. But race is different?
BTW, race does not make a person behave differently, the cultural associations and preconceptions can.
And part of what can break those preconceptions is to mix things up. Yes, we need more shows that realistically depict racial tensions, but we also need those that shake the stereotypes. For everyone.
quote:
And no, it doesn't matter if the setting is 'fantasy' or not: it simply freights a different set of circumstances and behaviours.
Star Trek(TOS)(TNG) did discuss race but did so obliquly. It treated Uhura, Geordi and Sulu as regular members of the crew. Just regular people. They are not diminished because of this.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It treated Uhura, Geordi and Sulu as regular members of the crew. Just regular people. They are not diminished because of this.
Yes.
And in context, ST:OS casting a black woman, an alien, a Chinese man and a Russian as bridge officers was a deliberate, knowing, and utterly bold statement about race and gender. The writers did that for the express purpose that you're denying existed.
But the audiences - and the networks - got it completely.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And part of what can break those preconceptions is to mix things up. Yes, we need more shows that realistically depict racial tensions, but we also need those that shake the stereotypes.
Which is pretty much what I was proposing in my experimental set-up.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I saw a production of Twelfth Night where the twins, Viola and Sebastian, who are supposed to be hard to tell apart, were played by a black man and a white woman.
Once I got past my surprise, I realized it didn't make any difference. Each of them played their role very well. I think it's more important to consider the particular talents of each actor rather than focusing on race.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I saw a production of Twelfth Night where the twins, Viola and Sebastian, who are supposed to be hard to tell apart, were played by a black man and a white woman.
Once I got past my surprise, I realized it didn't make any difference. Each of them played their role very well. I think it's more important to consider the particular talents of each actor rather than focusing on race.
Creates a bit of dramatic irony. The "indistinguishable" trope of twins in Shakespeare's comedies is so absurd on the face of it that it has to be intended as farce. Using two actors who are outrageously easy to tell apart makes it all the funnier. Having one of them 7 feet tall and the other 5 feet tall would work just as well and be just as funny.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Which is pretty much what I was proposing in my experimental set-up.
On the stage, that works (as I've said in other threads, you don't expect photorealism on stage).
On TV, if you randomly allocate a black kid to white parents, then (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) you're going to assume an adoption. Which will be fine for 95% of storylines, but not the one about Dad's genetic timebomb.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Going back to the OP, would there still be an issue in the US, which is presumably the target audience, about having an interracial romantic relationship on screen? I.e., is it more OK to have a white couple, or a black couple, than one where one of them is black and the other one is white?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to the OP, would there still be an issue in the US, which is presumably the target audience, about having an interracial romantic relationship on screen? I.e., is it more OK to have a white couple, or a black couple, than one where one of them is black and the other one is white?
Depends on whether you're interested in having viewers in red states.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It treated Uhura, Geordi and Sulu as regular members of the crew. Just regular people. They are not diminished because of this.
And in context, ST:OS casting a black woman, an alien, a Chinese man and a Russian as bridge officers was a deliberate, knowing, and utterly bold statement about race and gender.
Yes, I know. You said it cannot be done in fantasy and I should you an example where it has been done.
quote:
The writers did that for the express purpose that you're denying existed.
I'm not denying their purpose. Black, female role models are important to me, so I've read a bit about Uhura. Not claiming to be an expert, but certainly not a noob.
Your responses do not show an understanding of what I am attempting to convey.
I will say it as simply as I can: Casting people of colour in white roles* helps normalise the person of colour as a person rather than a preconception.
*"white" roles are often generic. The ethnicity is rarely an issue, as long as it is a white ethnicity.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to the OP, would there still be an issue in the US, which is presumably the target audience, about having an interracial romantic relationship on screen? I.e., is it more OK to have a white couple, or a black couple, than one where one of them is black and the other one is white?
Which is the plot of new horror film, Get Out.
So given that, I'm guessing yes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Which is pretty much what I was proposing in my experimental set-up.
On the stage, that works (as I've said in other threads, you don't expect photorealism on stage).
On TV, if you randomly allocate a black kid to white parents, then (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) you're going to assume an adoption. Which will be fine for 95% of storylines, but not the one about Dad's genetic timebomb.
Well, actually...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It treated Uhura, Geordi and Sulu as regular members of the crew. Just regular people. They are not diminished because of this.
And in context, ST:OS casting a black woman, an alien, a Chinese man and a Russian as bridge officers was a deliberate, knowing, and utterly bold statement about race and gender.
Yes, I know. You said it cannot be done in fantasy and I should you an example where it has been done.
Sigh. Which is the exact opposite of what actually happened, both there, and here.
quote:
Your responses do not show an understanding of what I am attempting to convey.
I will say it as simply as I can: Casting people of colour in white roles* helps normalise the person of colour as a person rather than a preconception.
Just call them roles then. I realise that historically, most roles were written by whites, for whites to be played by whites. We can argue about whether that was a fair reflection of society at large - latterly, it's certainly not.
And yes, fiction, whether it's in a book or on screen, has a role in challenging stereotypes as well as mirroring life. But since we're still a long way away from 'normalising' a lot of things - the visibility of older women, for example - to presume that the actors playing the role, and the audience viewing, wouldn't interpret that role differently is a profound misreading of how both actors and audiences work.
[buggered up the coding]
[ 07. October 2016, 22:49: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Well, I'm doing my part. I am way out here at the cutting edge of imagination.
Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on
:
Ok, seems like just about everyone agrees that plenty of pictures whitewash their characters. Though I would like to emphasize how stupid this one particular whitewash is. In a show set some centuries in the future and in which there are plenty of other races, hell, in the setting one of the most powerful figures is black.
I'm thinking that this must have been a very specific change, thought over. I mean in the book there is the navigator Ade with African-sounding last name, in the TV series there is navigator ADE but with perhaps Scandinavian-sounding last name. They took the name from the book so it sounds very likely that initially the navigator was Nigerian (and to be honest, how many white women who are called Ade do you know?). Then someone decided to change the character to a good-looking blond woman. I'm wondering who and why?
My thoughts are as follows. The management may have decided that ads of the show may be marginally worse because the character who is important only in the first episode is not white. The writers couldn't be bothered to change the whole early storyline to make sure Ade is not the heroine so they were just lazy and changed last name and skin color. However why would anyone do that in a show in which of approximately six major characters three are not mainstream white (one Indian, one Pakistani and one black). There is so much non white in the series that it makes no sense to limit exposure of non-white characters. It makes no sense to me. And minor spoiler alert, at some point the main white dude will be in a relationship with a black character. I fail to see how this change happened. Unless they just run out of Nigerian actors and had to change the script during production. I sincerely hope that this was the reason. No casual or not so casual racism but simple error of sorts. Ehh, I can only dream.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And yes, fiction, whether it's in a book or on screen, has a role in challenging stereotypes as well as mirroring life. But since we're still a long way away from 'normalising' a lot of things - the visibility of older women, for example - to presume that the actors playing the role, and the audience viewing, wouldn't interpret that role differently is a profound misreading of how both actors and audiences work.
How much an actor is allowed to interpret or change anything is not a set thing. A black actor playing Colombo without altering the script, what is he going to interpret differently?
As far as the audience, yes, they might receive the exact same performance from a black person differently than a white person. Making the audience think and readjust their thought patterns is the point.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I saw a production of Twelfth Night where the twins, Viola and Sebastian, who are supposed to be hard to tell apart, were played by a black man and a white woman.
Once I got past my surprise, I realized it didn't make any difference. Each of them played their role very well. I think it's more important to consider the particular talents of each actor rather than focusing on race.
Moo
Take it a tad farther. The best Hamlet I've ever seen was a woman. Her actual gender was neither highlighted nor ignored. On occasion someone said "she," but most of the time they stuck with the actual text, and I'm not at all sure that there was any directorial mandate on the subject. But she was damn good as an actor.
We're going to see the same troupe tonight do Macbeth, and about half the actors will be black and randomly scattered through the roles. Gender is usually less random, but we usually have at least one or two women playing men's roles just because of the distribution of roles in Shakespeare's plays. I've also seen players in wheelchairs, which is bound to be a bit more confining in terms of what you can do on stage, but not nearly as much as you might imagine. No attention was focused on that issue either.
But then, the greater the incongruity with the part-as-written, the better the acting probably has to be. So this might not fly so well with a group of amateurs.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On TV, if you randomly allocate a black kid to white parents, then (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) you're going to assume an adoption. Which will be fine for 95% of storylines, but not the one about Dad's genetic timebomb.
Well, actually...
*cough* (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) *cough*
Yes, we know it happens. And we know it's pretty rare, because its deemed worthy of a mention in the national press. That's why I said "unlikely" rather than "impossible".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as the audience, yes, they might receive the exact same performance from a black person differently than a white person. Making the audience think and readjust their thought patterns is the point.
Quite the point.
Also, when I read the phrase "Black person as Columbo , my heart did a little skip and I thought,"Delroy Lindo!"
I honestly link more people are getting bored with a lily white young pretty person narrative. It's boring to hear the same persons' story of that time, or the same archetypal stories. I think movie and television producers comfort levels are far less evolved than a lot of the people they profess to entertain. They need to be braver.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On TV, if you randomly allocate a black kid to white parents, then (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) you're going to assume an adoption. Which will be fine for 95% of storylines, but not the one about Dad's genetic timebomb.
Well, actually...
*cough* (unlikely mixed-race phenotype surprises aside) *cough*
Yes, we know it happens. And we know it's pretty rare, because its deemed worthy of a mention in the national press. That's why I said "unlikely" rather than "impossible".
Oh bugger, I missed that. Apologies.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
mrWaters,
Trends are easy to see, but individual cases are more difficult. Any of you reasons could be why they changed the casting.
But it would have been nice if they had kept the character Nigerian. For both the lack of parts and for the relationship.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Some of the best Shakespeare I've seen involved Cate Blanchett playing King Richard II and Pamela Rabe (who would be a superstar if she had focused on film rather than stage) playing King Richard III.
That production illustrated to me, more vividly than anything else I've seen, that finding the right actor for the part is not merely a product of ticking some boxes about how they look.
The whole thing about acting is that you're playing someone else, not yourself.
[ 08. October 2016, 03:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re race and gender in "Star Trek: TOS":
--The kiss between Uhura and Kirk in the "Plato's Children" episode was the first inter-racial kiss on (American TV).
--Nichelle Nichols was going to quit, until Dr. King convinced her to stay in the ground-breaking role.
--Actually, Sulu was Japanese, not Chinese.
--They dealt with race in other ways, too. Like in the episode with the two men who were the last remaining people on their planet. One had black skin on the left of his face, and white on the right. The other man had just the reverse. Kirk couldn't understand why it was a problem. "You're both black on one side, and white on the other." Yet that difference had been the reason almost everyone had been killed off. At the end, the men refused to make peace with each other, and went back down to the planet--to hunt and kill each other.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm especially fond of the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode Far Beyond the Stars in which the black space station captain hallucinates he's a negro science fiction writer in the 1950's who gets into trouble writing about a Black captain of a future Space Station.
It's one of the finer episodes that actually addresses race rather than just trying to erase it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And yes, fiction, whether it's in a book or on screen, has a role in challenging stereotypes as well as mirroring life. But since we're still a long way away from 'normalising' a lot of things - the visibility of older women, for example - to presume that the actors playing the role, and the audience viewing, wouldn't interpret that role differently is a profound misreading of how both actors and audiences work.
How much an actor is allowed to interpret or change anything is not a set thing. A black actor playing Colombo without altering the script, what is he going to interpret differently?
As far as the audience, yes, they might receive the exact same performance from a black person differently than a white person. Making the audience think and readjust their thought patterns is the point.
So you're saying that a black cop investigating (IIRC) white criminals - and catching them out every single week - isn't a fundamentally different show? Given the initial run on US tv was from '68 to '78?
Even without changing a single word of the script, that claim is a bit of a stretch.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
If you go into many northern European churches (of those denominations where representational art is part of the culture) you'll find a white Jesus, a white Mary, and white saints.
If you go into an Ethiopian church you may well find black Jesus, a black Mary, and black saints.
Realistic art, portraying Jewish people, has been set aside in favour of removing a potential impediment to identification with the characters.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And yes, fiction, whether it's in a book or on screen, has a role in challenging stereotypes as well as mirroring life. But since we're still a long way away from 'normalising' a lot of things - the visibility of older women, for example - to presume that the actors playing the role, and the audience viewing, wouldn't interpret that role differently is a profound misreading of how both actors and audiences work.
How much an actor is allowed to interpret or change anything is not a set thing. A black actor playing Colombo without altering the script, what is he going to interpret differently?
As far as the audience, yes, they might receive the exact same performance from a black person differently than a white person. Making the audience think and readjust their thought patterns is the point.
So you're saying that a black cop investigating (IIRC) white criminals - and catching them out every single week - isn't a fundamentally different show? Given the initial run on US tv was from '68 to '78?
Even without changing a single word of the script, that claim is a bit of a stretch.
I did not say that and you did not answer my question.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Realistic art, portraying Jewish people, has been set aside in favour of removing a potential impediment to identification with the characters.
<cough>inclusive language<cough>
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Realistic art, portraying Jewish people, has been set aside in favour of removing a potential impediment to identification with the characters.
Yeah, and Jews and Christians have lived happily together despite this.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
I'm just trying to remember what the recent BBC "Midsummer Night's Dream" did with the two couples (Hermia, Helena, Demetrius and Lysander)... I think both couples were black/white and Puck's spell redivided them into a black couple and a white couple?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'll find the links later, but Shakespeare's Globe cast a lot of BAME actors. The most recent Midsummer Night's Dream on the BBC was broadcast live as part of their summer 2016 season and wasn't just swapping race around but also gender and sexuality, making one of the couples gay.
One of the summer 2015 productions, Nell Gwynn, moved to the West End and recast the lead as Gemma Arterton instead of the very good black actor who played the part at The Globe. With what we know of Nell Gwynn, it wasn't impossible she was black. King Charles II was famously swarthy.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is British TV preoccupied with black and white the same way American TV is? (I seem to hear the terms brown and First Nations more often in Canada at present)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is British TV preoccupied with black and white the same way American TV is? (I seem to hear the terms brown and First Nations more often in Canada at present)
Not sure what you mean by obsessed. It does not seem so to me.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is British TV preoccupied with black and white the same way American TV is?
No. ISTM that American TV portrays a melting pot, whilst in American society the races are fairly segregated. Whereas British TV portrays a monoculture, whilst in society the races are less segregated in some ways.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is British TV preoccupied with black and white the same way American TV is?
No. ISTM that American TV portrays a melting pot, whilst in American society the races are fairly segregated. Whereas British TV portrays a monoculture, whilst in society the races are less segregated in some ways.
It isn't quite that simple. A mixed couple is more likely to appear on British telly than American. Especially without that being the focus.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Curiosity Killed...
quote:
One of the summer 2015 productions, Nell Gwynn, moved to the West End and recast the lead as Gemma Arterton instead of the very good black actor who played the part at The Globe. With what we know of Nell Gwynn, it wasn't impossible she was black. King Charles II was famously swarthy.
I'd judge it unlikely, based on her portrait. Unless you take the Baldrick view of these matters.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A black actor playing Colombo without altering the script, what is he going to interpret differently?
Columbo (the character) was an Italian-American - the scripts reference his ethnicity several times, and in couple of episodes it's even significant. Peter Falk isn't, as far as I know, of Italian descent, and doesn't look or sound Italian to me. I didn't find that affected my enjoyment of the show. (I have the box set and watched it back-to-back while convalescing last year - there are some benefits to heart surgery).
I think a black Columbo would have been different - and interesting. Because quite a lot of the point of that show was character interaction - the detective solving the crimes by sympathy, manipulation and brainpower in approximately equal measures - and how the audience and the other characters perceived and reacted to Columbo was central. Given that I know that race and racism are issues in the USA, it would stretch credibility too far to think that the other character's could see, and be influenced by, the colour of his coat, but not the colour of his skin.
I think an actor could probably make that work with the script as written - but it would make a difference.
Summary - I've no problem (morally or artistically) with an actor portraying a character of another ethnicity, but I don't think you can always change a character's explicit or implied ethnicity without changing the message.
A recent character race change on TV was in the Preacher TV show, an adaptation of a series of graphics novels. In the books, Tulip O'Hare has an aggressively white American background. The TV character is non-white (the actor is of Ethiopian and Irish heritage, according to Wikipedia). Although both Tulips are intelligent, bad-ass, likeable, and of dubious morality, they are otherwise portrayed very differently. The white character's home life is shown as odd, but basically happy, she has wealthy and privileged friends, and her past character-shaping misfortunes are those associated with white America (hunting accidents and frat-party attempted rapes) whereas the black character comes from a deprived background, and her family is clearly viewed as trash. Both Tulip characters end up sleeping with the character Cassidy, but the white character does so because she is heartbroken, the black one because she is horny.
Since the TV show changes a lot of stuff that's in the books, it doesn't follow that all of those changes were made because of the change to the character's race, but it probably is significant that all of them were felt to be consistent with the change of race.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The one from the studio of Peter Lely? Globe production starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw.
In Stuart times (and Tudor times) the fashion was for white skin and women used a variety of powders, often made from white lead or mercury powders and patches. All the Lely portraits of women have white unblemished skin - which was undoubtedly a lie as small pox was rife.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A black actor playing Colombo without altering the script, what is he going to interpret differently?
Columbo (the character) was an Italian-American
- the scripts reference his ethnicity several times, and in couple of episodes it's even significant.
This fellow is Italian American. Likely as much as many all-white Americans who claim the same.
quote:
I think a black Columbo would have been different - and interesting. Because quite a lot of the point of that show was character interaction - the detective solving the crimes by sympathy, manipulation and brainpower in approximately equal measures - and how the audience and the other characters perceived and reacted to Columbo was central. Given that I know that race and racism are issues in the USA, it would stretch credibility too far to think that the other character's could see, and be influenced by, the colour of his coat, but not the colour of his skin.
And yet, this show did that very thing for 56 episodes, years in syndication and a strong cult following to this day. I haven't seen as many episodes of this show, but I do not remember race being a factor for the ones I did.
This show did not reflect attitudes of the era in which it was filmed and certainly not of the era which it represents.
quote:
I think an actor could probably make that work with the script as written - but it would make a difference.
I am not saying that it would not make a difference, but challenging what needs to be changed and why as well as what differences it would make.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Columbo (the character) was an Italian-American
- the scripts reference his ethnicity several times, and in couple of episodes it's even significant.
This fellow is Italian American. Likely as much as many all-white Americans who claim the same.
And that guy, reading Columbo's script, would be playing a character that I would respond to completely differently to Peter Falk's interpretation. The ear-rings and the flamboyantly styled hair would mean that the character was projecting a wholly different image to the on-screen world, and would be engaging with suspects in a quite different manner to his alternate-self in a shabby rain-coat.
That's not because I think that a man with ear-rings is a fundamentally different order of being to a man in a rain-coat. In real life, I doubt I'd care either way about the appearance of either. But the story is one which is, to a large degree, about image, and about perceptions of and reactions to a projected image, and I know enough to find it very plausible that people are, in general, going to treat those two ways of accessorising very differently.
Exactly the same is true of skin colour.
I'm sure that there are roles where colour doesn't matter - and it is certainly possible to tell stories where race is not an issue. But not all roles, and not all stories.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
What I don't get is how a black Henry VI* is OK, but a white Aida isn't.
Especially given how one is a genuine historical character and the other is fiction.
.
*= I saw all three plays, and by God he did a great job.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And that guy, reading Columbo's script, would be playing a character that I would respond to completely differently to Peter Falk's interpretation. The ear-rings and the flamboyantly styled hair would mean that the character was projecting a wholly different image to the on-screen world, and would be engaging with suspects in a quite different manner to his alternate-self in a shabby rain-coat.
His youthful appearance wasn't the point of the image. It was to illustrate that perception of what characteristics a particular group has, does not always meet reality.
KA's suggestion of Delroy Lindo is fantastic. He could embody all the important story characteristics of Colombo.
quote:
That's not because I think that a man with ear-rings is a fundamentally different order of being to a man in a rain-coat. In real life, I doubt I'd care either way about the appearance of either. But the story is one which is, to a large degree, about image, and about perceptions of and reactions to a projected image, and I know enough to find it very plausible that people are, in general, going to treat those two ways of accessorising very differently.
Exactly the same is true of skin colour.
This is only because of aeons of pretending that colour imparts characteristics which it does not.
quote:
I'm sure that there are roles where colour doesn't matter - and it is certainly possible to tell stories where race is not an issue. But not all roles, and not all stories.
Which roles and what stories? The answers to that say a lot about the answerer. I think there are far fewer race specific roles than most would list.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is how a black Henry VI* is OK, but a white Aida isn't.
Especially given how one is a genuine historical character and the other is fiction.
Black actors have fewer role choices, to give the role of a black person to a white person appears to perpetuate that discriminatory practice.
Giving a white role to a black pesron does not have the same effect.
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on
:
In "Homicide: Life on the Street", the *wonderful* US crime show, Yaphet Kotto played Lt. Al Giardino. His character's back story (which wasn't revealed right away) was that his father was Italian American and his mother was black. It was quite interesting and cool to see a Italian-American black character. The characters in the show were based on part on real Baltimore homicide detectives, one of whom was a (white) italian-American lieutenant who became "Al Giardino" in the show.
It's possible that the part was originally written for a white actor. I give the creators of the series kudos for not eliminating the Italian-ness of the character when Yaphet Kotto was chosen for the part.
If anyone has not seen "Homicide" and loves good crime drama, this show is a must. The show is based on a superb non-fiction book, "Homicide: a year on the killing streets" by David Simon. Simon was a creator of the "Homicide" show and went on to co-create :"The Wire".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which roles and what stories? The answers to that say a lot about the answerer. I think there are far fewer race specific roles than most would list.
After posting I realised that this could be perceived as a veiled accusation of racism. It is not meant to be.
IME, people attach meaning to some things that does not have to be there. Colour is one of those things.
It is often an unconscious attachment.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, when I read the phrase "Black person as Columbo , my heart did a little skip and I thought,"Delroy Lindo!"
Are you confusing Columbo with Kojak? Black Columbo would be somebody like Reginald VelJohnson.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is only because of aeons of pretending that colour imparts characteristics which it does not.
Yes. 100% agree. Only because of that.
But since we all know that's true, if someone is telling a story about a society vaguely like the real one, the race of the characters can affect how they see one another in the context of that story.
Your point seems to be that few modes of story-telling demand that level of realism and that writers are free to just cast black people as black characters without the story being about race. I suppose they can. but if they are telling a story where a black character would be treated differently from a white one if the story were real, they are also free to reflect that. The more realistic the genre, the more they ought to reflect it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, when I read the phrase "Black person as Columbo , my heart did a little skip and I thought,"Delroy Lindo!"
Are you confusing Columbo with Kojak? Black Columbo would be somebody like Reginald VelJohnson.
Anthony Anderson could pull off Columbo as well. VelJohnson is too old. Anderson is a bit young. Hmmm?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Kojak was very Greek, and that was an integral part of the show and the plots. So a black actor playing him would have to look plausibly at least half Greek, IMHO.
Note: I don't know the demographics of Greeks in Greece. Given the Mediterranean, there may well have been a lot of ethnic mixing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But since we all know that's true, if someone is telling a story about a society vaguely like the real one, the race of the characters can affect how they see one another in the context of that story.
There are quite a number of online vids that point out that many of these "realistic" stories have little realism in them. Forensic science that is science fiction, computer science that is fantasy. "Romantic" plot lines that would have a real perpetrator in the dock for stalking and harassment. Court procedurals that would have the barrister debarred.
The list goes on and on and on. I would posit that the majority of television and film is more unrealistic than real.
Going back to the forensic science. I had a friend who was a forensic technician. A CSI, if you will. She spoke of how people believed the rubbish shown on the telly and how it affected the evidence presented in a real court.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kojak was very Greek, and that was an integral part of the show and the plots. So a black actor playing him would have to look plausibly at least half Greek, IMHO.
A great deal was made about Banacek's Polish heritage also, including the crazy Polish proverbs he would come up with. (E.g. "When the wolf is chasing your sleigh, throw him a raisin cookie, but don't stop to bake him a cake.")
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kojak was very Greek, and that was an integral part of the show and the plots. So a black actor playing him would have to look plausibly at least half Greek, IMHO.
A great deal was made about Banacek's Polish heritage also, including the crazy Polish proverbs he would come up with. (E.g. "When the wolf is chasing your sleigh, throw him a raisin cookie, but don't stop to bake him a cake.")
Ving Rhames played Kojak in a 2005 remake.
How much of the plot or story reveolved around Kojak being Greek? They mention it, but was anything else tied to it?
There are stories in which the character's background is tied to the structure of the show and those where it is decoration.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is how a black Henry VI* is OK, but a white Aida isn't.
Especially given how one is a genuine historical character and the other is fiction.
Black actors have fewer role choices, to give the role of a black person to a white person appears to perpetuate that discriminatory practice.
Giving a white role to a black pesron does not have the same effect.
There is an example of this in the casting of "The Ancient One" for the forthcoming movie Doctor Strange. In the comics, the character is a really old (one might say "ancient") Tibetan mystic living in a Tibetan mountain lamasery. He is depicted as wise and powerful, being Earth's primary defense against mystic threats from other dimensions.
So: Old Tibetan man in Tibetan lamasery. So what does the film do? Cast a white woman (Tilda Swinton) in the part, of course.
But the reasons aren't all that straightforward, as explained by one of the movie's writers.
I am uncertain about calling the original role "a racist stereotype." Is suggesting that an Asian man is wise and powerful a stereotype? Maybe it is. It does bear some resemblance to Master Po in the Kung Fu television series. And Charlie Chan is always the smartest guy in the room. I guess a stereotype doesn't have to be a negative stereotype. But surely the head of a Tibetan lamasery should be Tibetan? What? They need a white person to guide them? Surely that is far more offensive than suggesting the head of the lamasery is wise.
But what is more interesting is the comment concerning the political situation. The argument is that casting an actual Tibetan to play a powerful Tibetan in Tibet would essentially guaranty that the film would not get released in China, thereby losing a huge potential audience. And, it is argued, to cast a non-Tibetan Asian (such as a Chinese, Japanese or Indian woman) would actually come across more culturally insensitive than going with a white woman.
BTW, the gender switch is not, in itself, all that controversial as far as I can determine--it is the perceived "whitewashing" of the role that gets comments.
Perhaps to combat the backlash against that, Marvel took another character (Baron Mordo), who in the comics is a white nobleman from Transylvania, and cast a black actor (the wonderful Chiwetel Ejiofor) in the part. I would consider Baron Mordo to be the sort of part where race is not an essential part of the character. There is no reason he cannot be black.
Although, in the comic books, Baron Mordo is a bad guy, so making him black may, again, trigger charges of being an offensive change ("Oh, so you think black people are evil?!?") but it is unclear whether he will be a bad guy in this movie. He is certainly not the central villain.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ving Rhames played Kojak in a 2005 remake.
How much of the plot or story reveolved around Kojak being Greek? They mention it, but was anything else tied to it?
There are stories in which the character's background is tied to the structure of the show and those where it is decoration.
Greekness was deeply a part of the character--and the actor, Telly Savalas, whose parents were Greek immigrants. Take that away, and Kojak wouldn't be Kojak. You could do a show with a similar outline, but a lead character of a different ethnicity. But that would be a different show--and would need to focus on that lead character's ethnic roots.
Here is Wikipedia's list of Kojak episodes. If you search the page for "Greek", you'll find several episodes where his Greekness was a specific part of the plot.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
On the subject of Luke Cage: he has what in a white superhero would be generic powers: superstrength and bulletproof skin. I gather the creative staff realised as they were making it that this is far more charged when the character is black. In the light of the shootings of young black men by police a scene where Cage is confronted by two policemen who think he's guilty of murder takes on a whole lot of resonances. They touch on the theme lightly because they're making superhero television rather than The Wire, and don't want to scare the horses too much, but the theme is there (explicitly at one point).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am uncertain about calling the original role "a racist stereotype." Is suggesting that an Asian man is wise and powerful a stereotype? Maybe it is. It does bear some resemblance to Master Po in the Kung Fu television series. And Charlie Chan is always the smartest guy in the room.
And Ellery Queen is always the smartest person in the room, as is Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. He's the fucking lead character of a detective series. Of course he's the smartest person in the story. That's not racism that's detective fiction for God's sake.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well, to be fair, there are sooooo many racist tropes in Charlie Chan that separating out the non-racist bits is a bit difficult.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, to be fair, there are sooooo many racist tropes in Charlie Chan that separating out the non-racist bits is a bit difficult.
Except the "smartest man in the room" trope which is not racist. There is no trope of "the middle-aged Chinese guy is always the smartest person in a group of mixed-race people." It just doesn't exist. Asian kids being better at math, sure. But that's not the same trope.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, to be fair, there are sooooo many racist tropes in Charlie Chan that separating out the non-racist bits is a bit difficult.
Except the "smartest man in the room" trope which is not racist. There is no trope of "the middle-aged Chinese guy is always the smartest person in a group of mixed-race people." It just doesn't exist. Asian kids being better at math, sure. But that's not the same trope.
Asian wisdom is and that is a short walk away in the film versions, despite the creator's intention.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, when I read the phrase "Black person as Columbo , my heart did a little skip and I thought,"Delroy Lindo!"
Are you confusing Columbo with Kojak? Black Columbo would be somebody like Reginald VelJohnson.
Anthony Anderson could pull off Columbo as well. VelJohnson is too old. Anderson is a bit young. Hmmm?
Delroy Lindo could do Columbo. ( And no, I haven't confused Columbo with Kodak. Hate Kojak, love Columbo.)
Delroy has a sort of paternal sage like warmth that can totally be spun into that chummy confidante thing Falk had going on. Put him in a flannel shirt with a cardigan and wire framed lenses,and I can totally see him flashing his grandkids' photos at a perp.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I dearly love Charlie Chan. Have, since I was a kid.
I've always seen him as wise, witty, smart, observant, shrewd, and kind. He just happened not to be entirely fluent in English.
I knew some of the other characters had racist ideas about him--AND that he sometimes played to those ideas, in order to get their guard down and find out the truth. If someone thinks you're of lower value and intelligence, they may not worry about what they say to you.
A local retro station periodically runs a couple of the films: "Charlie Chan In Egypt", with Warner Oland; and "Charlie Chan In Honolulu", with Sidney Toller, my favorite Charlie Chan. From what I've seen, CC isn't treated in a racist way by characters in either film. They may hate him for meddling in their business--but it's because he's a detective, not because he's Chinese.
(Just occurred to me: I think I've always thought of him as generally American. But he lived in Hawai'i, and all the original films were made before Hawai'i became a state in 1959. So no clue whether he was supposed to be a citizen or not--not that it matters.)
BTW, the Wikipedia article on Charlie Chan has some interesting info. The author of the original books was trying to counteract the "Yellow Peril" fear-mongering, and was inspired by a couple of detectives in Hawai'i. The earliest films had Asian actors portray Charlie, but the audiences didn't take to them. When they used a white actor, interest picked up.
From the middle or the article:
quote:
Critic Michael Brodhead argues that "Biggers's sympathetic treatment of the Charlie Chan novels convinces the reader that the author consciously and forthrightly spoke out for the Chinese – a people to be not only accepted but admired. Biggers's sympathetic treatment of the Chinese reflected and contributed to the greater acceptance of Chinese-Americans in the first third of [the twentieth] century."[48] S. T. Karnick writes in the National Review that Chan is "a brilliant detective with understandably limited facility in the English language [whose] powers of observation, logic, and personal rectitude and humility made him an exemplary, entirely honorable character."[25] Ellery Queen called Biggers's characterization of Charlie Chan "a service to humanity and to inter-racial relations."[6] Dave Kehr of The New York Times said Chan "might have been a stereotype, but he was a stereotype on the side of the angels."[17] Luke* agreed; when asked if he thought that the character was demeaning to the race, he responded, "Demeaning to the race? My God! You've got a Chinese hero!"[49] and "[W]e were making the best damn murder mysteries in Hollywood."[20][50]
*Keye Luke, who played Charlie's son (Jimmy?) in several films, and later played Master Po in "Kung Fu".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Greekness was deeply a part of the character--and the actor, Telly Savalas, whose parents were Greek immigrants. Take that away, and Kojak wouldn't be Kojak. You could do a show with a similar outline, but a lead character of a different ethnicity. But that would be a different show--and would need to focus on that lead character's ethnic roots.
4 episodes out of 125. How deep is that? If you switched Telly for his brother (who played Curly on the show) it would have been different. Same ethnic roots.
Cagney & Lacey need to be played by women because that is the premise.
Let me put it another way: Your house does not change architectural style merely because you paint the walls a different colour. Your perception of the house might change, but that is a function of your preconception.
IMO, from the admittedly few episodes I've seen, Kojak being Greek is merely paint and μπιχλιμπίδια*
*tchotchkes
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lB--
Kojak's Greekness went much deeper than a paint job. It was part of the architecture.
FWIW, you might see it differently if you'd grown up on the entire series, plus re-runs.
{Hands lB a Tootsie Pop.}
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I dearly love Charlie Chan. Have, since I was a kid.
I've always seen him as wise, witty, smart, observant, shrewd, and kind. He just happened not to be entirely fluent in English.
[Snip]
BTW, the Wikipedia article on Charlie Chan has some interesting info. The author of the original books was trying to counteract the "Yellow Peril" fear-mongering, and was inspired by a couple of detectives in Hawai'i. The earliest films had Asian actors portray Charlie, but the audiences didn't take to them. When they used a white actor, interest picked up.
In the early films, with Asian actors (at least one of whom was Japanese IIRC) the character of Chan was very much a supporting role, only appearing near the end of the film. The actors really didn't have much of a chance to catch the public imagination.
But what I have always appreciated about the Chan films is that, while Charlie was played by a white man, without exception his children (numerous sons and at least 2 daughters) were always played by genuine Asian actors (who often would spout off some lines in Chinese--Mandarin, I assume, but I suppose it could have been Cantonese--as the white actor pretends to understand). As you can imagine, there were very few roles for Chinese actors in the 1930s and 1940s and the Chan films gave them their best exposure.
The other point is that, while Charlie spoke halting English like he was translating before speaking, his children (again without exception) all spoke perfect colloquial English--as well as Chinese.
And, yes, while the Chan films certainly had some "racist tropes" as lilB observed (heck, I think those films invented some of them!), compared to the "Yellow Peril" films (like the Fu Manchu franchise), the Chan films seemed like quite a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re CC's kids:
In "Charlie Chan In Honolulu", there's a great scene at the family breakfast table. Whole bunch of kids, sometimes raucous, and they've assimilated pretty well. (Not saying they should have, just that they did.) Mrs. Chan didn't have much screen time, but I think she was pretty middle of the road in assimilation.
Oh, and there's a list of the actors who played Chan in that Wikipedia article.
[ 11. October 2016, 01:54: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--
Kojak's Greekness went much deeper than a paint job. It was part of the architecture.
FWIW, you might see it differently if you'd grown up on the entire series, plus re-runs.
I'll defer to your greater knowledge of the show, whilst still mainlining that it matters in fewer situations than many people would think.
quote:
{Hands lB a Tootsie Pop.}
Many thanks. I love a good lolly.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Delroy has a sort of paternal sage like warmth that can totally be spun into that chummy confidante thing Falk had going on. Put him in a flannel shirt with a cardigan and wire framed lenses,and I can totally see him flashing his grandkids' photos at a perp.
Dude, we're both wrong! Mos Def!
I mean the guy is so disarming they should aim him at mine fields. That sunny smile, that perpetual twinkle in his eye. He's a little on the young side, but I have seen him play old before.
"Excuse me ma'am, can I ask you a question? " Can't you just hear it?
(I guess the point of this whole tangent is that a creative casting director could probably find a person of color to fit a fairly standard character template. Hollywood is just cowardly. They don't want to think outside the box because the box is safe.)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And they know there's money in the box.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is how a black Henry VI* is OK, but a white Aida isn't.
Especially given how one is a genuine historical character and the other is fiction.
Black actors have fewer role choices, to give the role of a black person to a white person appears to perpetuate that discriminatory practice.
Giving a white role to a black pesron does not have the same effect.
So the colour of an actor playing a role doesn't matter, except if it's a black role in which case it very much does matter?
Seems a bit "one rule for you, another for us" to me.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's trying to balance out the scales. An example: many people read only books written by men. So at least one reviewer is, for a year, reading and reviewing only women authors.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An example: many people read only books written by men. So at least one reviewer is, for a year, reading and reviewing only women authors.
And this in a world where seven of the top ten best selling books in the last fifteen years were written by a woman.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
While I have nothing against best-sellers, some fantasy series I love are best-sellers*, a considerable number of people who read consider themselves far too serious to read best-sellers.
*Yes, that is totally just the kind of some-of-my-best-friends qualification that shows the author's inherent bias. It's also true.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is British TV preoccupied with black and white the same way American TV is?
No. ISTM that American TV portrays a melting pot, whilst in American society the races are fairly segregated. Whereas British TV portrays a monoculture, whilst in society the races are less segregated in some ways.
It's interesting, though, that many black British actors claim that in order to be successful in their field, they have to go to the USA.
Of course, a number of white British actors also head for LA, but the issue seems to be more pressing for black actors.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Golden Key:
Kojak's Greekness went much deeper than a paint job. It was part of the architecture.
FWIW, you might see it differently if you'd grown up on the entire series, plus re-runs.
{Hands lB a Tootsie Pop.}
Who loves ya, baby?
quote:
originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Dude, we're both wrong! Mos Def!
Mos Def would work. Turns out, Peter Falk was only 44 when he started playing Columbo. Mos Def is 42. So, age isn't that big a deal. FWIW...Peter Falk was Jewish.
[ 11. October 2016, 14:42: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is how a black Henry VI* is OK, but a white Aida isn't.
Especially given how one is a genuine historical character and the other is fiction.
Black actors have fewer role choices, to give the role of a black person to a white person appears to perpetuate that discriminatory practice.
Giving a white role to a black pesron does not have the same effect.
So the colour of an actor playing a role doesn't matter, except if it's a black role in which case it very much does matter?
Seems a bit "one rule for you, another for us" to me.
Plus, there are more white actors than white roles too. That's the nature of the biz. Somebody has to wait tables at high end restaurants in New York and Los Angeles.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Plus, there are more white actors than white roles too. That's the nature of the biz. Somebody has to wait tables at high end restaurants in New York and Los Angeles.
That's like saying that elite universities don't have a problem with the number of black students they admit because they reject a load of white kids too.
This isn't really the same question as the question of whether and when actors of a specific racial appearance should be used, but it becomes entangled with it because reality is messy.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So the colour of an actor playing a role doesn't matter, except if it's a black role in which case it very much does matter?
Seems a bit "one rule for you, another for us" to me.
No, it is really one rule: assist those who have been traditional excluded.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And don't forget that many a role clearly specifying a person who is not white (Othello instantly comes to mind) used to be played by a white man in blackface.
There is still a firm perception that the headliner, the star of the movie, has to be a white man. A good example would be the recent movie Moses, Prince of Egypt. The title character was played by Christian Bale. Everyone else, including all the children of Israel and Moses' family, were played by brown Middle-Eastern-looking actors. They wanted it to look right (better than Charlton Heston as Moses, right?) but they needed a star.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Plus, there are more white actors than white roles too. That's the nature of the biz. Somebody has to wait tables at high end restaurants in New York and Los Angeles.
That's like saying that elite universities don't have a problem with the number of black students they admit because they reject a load of white kids too.
This isn't really the same question as the question of whether and when actors of a specific racial appearance should be used, but it becomes entangled with it because reality is messy.
Yeah and I'm OK with saying that.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah and I'm OK with saying that.
OK, let's break this down. Begin with the assumption that natural ability at X doesn't correlate with skin tone (whether X is acting, mathematics, or whatever).
Now look at your highly-selective set of X-doers (Holywood movies, big-name universities, whatever - all things that get lots of applicants, but most are rejected.)
If our assumption holds, then you should expect to select actors, undergraduate mathematicians, or whatever else, with racial characteristics that resemble the wider population. There will be statistical fluctuations, but that is what you expect.
When you discover that, in fact, you're not hiring black actors, or admitting black mathematicians, in anything like the numbers that the naive expectation would predict, then you have two possibilities.
Either black people suck at acting, or math (ie. our assumption was false) or there's racial bias going on.
Now, in itself, that doesn't tell you where the racial bias is - it's possible that your admissions process is fine, and all the potential black mathematicians are being diverted elsewhere in middle school.
But it tells you that you have a problem somewhere, and you can't pretend it's not there by saying "but we rejected several talented white men, so we can't have racial bias."
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
minor spoiler alert, at some point the main white dude will be in a relationship with a black character.
Without knowing the show, isn't that the likely explanation ?
That the production team thought that the important relationship later in the series would be seen in a subtly different light if there's a significant cross-racial relationship in episode 1 ?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Following Learning Cnight's lead:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And they know there's money in the box.
If you have a bunch of trees in an orchard, and if you only feed and water one, that will be the one that produces.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0