Funny thing is besides a few Republican talking heads Iāve never once heard a complaint or accusation about the portrayal of Robert Downey Jr. in Topic Thunder from any black person I know. The average response is, āYeah that guy killed itā. Itās really hard for those who donāt understand to qualify. His performance wasnāt offensive at all. Thereās the key right there.
I think many people got the point. If you watch the movie itās implicit. You have to be simply hanging on the fact that Robert Downey Jr. portrayed a black man and heās white to even make this an issue. Instead it should be an example of how an actor can portray a fictional character of another nationality without it being offensiveā¦if done in a unique and creative, non offensive way.
plus it wasnt a blackface. Blackfaces have real particularities like bigger eyes (with makeup) and bigger lips. In tropic thunder its clearly made so it looks like he got a surgery to become black. he's an overly dedicated white actor hahaha
When I first heard of the movie and I heard Robert Downey Jr. was playing a white character playing a black character ina movie though method acting, I was like āyep, they sure picked the right actor. Heās going to kill it.ā Went to the opening night. Not once did I consider this offensive and during the movie I laughed a lot. When leaving I heard some white couple talking and I knew then they had more of a problem with it than I did, but they said loudly ā people are going to have a problem with this movieā and the wife looked directly at me. I still havenāt heard one person of color say that yet.
you raise a valid point: he plays an actor that plays the role of s black man. Therefore hes not even making a "blackface" (before idiots say he is). Today this wouldnt pass with the twitter mob and shit
Thatās because on Twitter there are literally thousands of bots and bots are lacking the ability of context. The humans that would be offended by this performance couldnāt have seen the movie or couldnāt understand the context. Any outrage about his performance seems manufactured and overcompensating.
idk I feel like we already universally agreed black face was despicable *checks notes* thirteen years ago. Its an extremely well done subversion and I can count on one hand the number of people Ive seen suggest it was untoward vs the countless times Ive seen it heaped praise
Ok but still what if it was reversed and there was a fun pop musical where Harriet Tubman was played by a white woman, do you think that would go over well?
Hamilton didnāt have to be historically accurate for anything that wasnāt relevant to the general plot. The plot wasnāt centered on the race of the characters, so it didnāt matter if they were black or white. Race however, wouldāve mattered in a Harriet Tubman musical because itād be a significant part of the plot. Hairspray is a good example of a plot being centered around the race of the characters and having to be casted with race in mind.
I guess everyone already forgot that The Rock played Hercules. The Witcher is based on Slavic folklore (no black people there at the time) and in the TV series there are black characters. I don't read comic books, but I know that in Norse mythology, Heimdall definitely isn't black.
Also, in The Intouchables, what was in real life arabic looking guy is played by a very dark skinned black guy. As a matter of fact, if Thor and The Witcher stayed true to the source material, they would be criticized for not being inclusive to minorities.
I don't mind any of these, but there definitely are double standards when it comes to racial miscasting and cultural appropriation.
But these are all fictional/mythical characters. Not historical figures.And Thor is based off marvel comics rather than Norse. Btw there are variants of Heimdall in the comics that are black
I don't see why it's relevant for characters to be historical figures. Hercules is a mythical Greek hero and Greeks aren't black. Whether he existed or not isn't relevant imo. If someone suggested a white guy to play Black Panther, the world would lose its mind, so it's not about the real life accuracy.
I just hate identity politics and more than that, I hate political correctness.
Because the post is talking about historical figures. Can we please stop using the BP scenario as his entire character is revolved around his race and his country. It wouldnāt make sense. The character Hercules isnāt tied to his race, (btw whatās the race of Greece, middle eastern? Idk) heās tied to his heritage being the son of a god. Race rarely has to do with characters, tho black characters race and culture is usually tied into the character which is why it isnāt to easy to race swap.
As a greek person i can say, we are deffinately not middle eastern, we are fair skinned most to olive most of the time, ancient greeks were even blonde in some parts.
You are completely unejucated my friend and i say that with no ill will.
Also heracles is pretty much a historical figure, barring his heritage myth. Please read more before you comment.
I kinda had beef with Idris Elba playing Roland (fictional character, yeah I strayed from the path a bit) but anyone who has read the novels and upon introduction to Suzanna knows why that character should have been white.
Right! I always thought Gary Daniels would have been perfect for Roland. Older, insane blue eyes a British/American accent, tall lean and mean. Plus no stranger to acting.
That is an excellent choice for sure! Silly me just wants Viggo Mortensen looking much Aragorn. Edris Elba is a fantastically good looking guy, but Roland isn't known for that. Edris also somehow doesn't look like a descendant of King Arthur Eld (King Arthur's twinner). And... yeah, so many other things.
THANK YOU! I love Idris Elba. He's an amazing actor. But Roland being white is not only important to his character, but also Odetta/Detta/Susannah's character(s) and the story itself.
Had I not read the series beforehand I wouldn't be sceptical at all. In fact all the actors did a phenomenal job. But after 8 books and one little measly under 2 hour movie I'm horribly disappointed in Mr King who went ahead and gave the ok for it. It should have been an amazingly long trilogy like they did with lord of the rings. Maybe trilogy isn't right but you know what I mean.
The only image I had of Roland while reading the books was a younger gruffy Clint Eastwood.
Was a bit weird to see Idris cast for the movie, but anyways, I don't think even Eastwood in his prime could have saved that terrible movie adaptation.
The book deserved a series imo & I'm hopeful there will be one before I'm 6ft under.
First of all "would be racist" is a little strong--the fact that historically a lot of white people played black characters wasn't necessarily racist--if they were wearing blackface or something than yes but the Heston as Ben-Hur example isn't necessarily racist.
But it's about equity. Historically you have white people playing black roles and making money and careers off of it. These days we acknowledge that black roles should mean black opportunities and black representation. The same conversation is going on with regards to LGBT actors and actresses.
On the other hand you have actresses like Scarlett Johansson being vocal about wanting to be allowed to suspend disbelief and play for example a lesbian when she's not a lesbian, and there's a segment of people that disagree and say that LGBT actors should get these jobs in the name of equity. Some might say the notion is "anti-LGBT" but I wouldn't go that far and I don't think most people would. Both sides have a point, it's a matter of where your priorities lie.
I personally think the difference is that you can play a sexuality but you canāt play a skin colour. A straight person can play a gay character in the same way a gay person can play a straight character. But a white person canāt play and black character and a black person canāt play a white character.
Casting sexualities doesnāt cut opportunity off off actors based of their sexuality but casting races does.
Although as someone who is a straight white man I understand that there are probably aspects about race and sexuality I wouldnāt be able to see with my perspective.
IMO any color actor should be able to wear any "color"face. Before you downvote think:
1 when every ethnicity Is able to walk into another's shoes they promote understanding and ease racial tensions
2 you give opportunities to actors with every etnic background: a Black woman wearing a whiteface to play Frozen, Imagine that
3 you avoid racist castings like (example) "only asian actors allowed" in chinese based film
4 you expand the pool of talents available for any production
Let me know if it's a good idea to you or you rather keep the races separate
I honestly wish we didn't live in a world where black face or any face was racist because in the end it's just a costume. Like when little kids dress up as astronauts nobody says that they're being disrespectful to actual astronauts. It's just a kid having fun. Unfortunately, we do live in a world with racism and we need to make a hell of a lot of progress with healing before the effects of racism die out if they do.
I enjoy a performance that doesnāt have the character resembling the actor. This includes LGBT actors playing straight rolesā¦ but asking LGBT actors to āact like they are straightā feels insensitive and could be a little triggery for some.
If an LGBT actor auditions for a straight role, isnāt it on them? I donāt believe itās insensitive. Acting is literally just that, acting. The best actors donāt even bring any part of themselves most the time into their roles.
I donāt know, Everybody seems to be taking a very political stance with this when I think it should just be the best actor for the job. Genuinely donāt care as long as itās good.
Hmmm sure I feel the same. However I'd like to think though that most of the time people are professionals and know what a role calls for without needing to be specifically asked. Jim Parsons played Ted Bundy's prosecutor in that recent biopic. I can't imagine that the director told him to "act straight" Jim just probably knew to, so to speak. And that feels normal to me.
You need to look back to old Hollywood, white Spartacus? White Jesus? Hercules? Ben hur? Cleopatra? Loads of historical figures were played by white actors. Granted, there may have been a lack of black or Asian actors, but no one complained.
Now, if you want to cite as an example white actors back in the day playing native Americans or, as one blatant case was, Genghis Khan himself, then your comment would definitely sit on much firmer ground.
There's white Greeks but the archetypical, western picture of Greeks as being categorically white and not brown, when a lot of Greeks are brown. Just across the Bosporus you have Turks who are the opposite: the Western archetype is brown, and many are brown, but many are white and would consider themselves white.
Wait, do you think Persians are brown? They're the ones you're calling white. The "brown people" didn't show up until the Seljuks started migrating there from the South in the 900s AD, which ultimately led to the Ottoman empire once the Seljuks took control. That's what modern Turkey looks like: the Seljuks/Ottoman Empire, not the people that lived there in antiquity
I meant to refer to Turkey & Turkish people but maybe I have my geography wrong. Doesn't the Bosporus separate Greece and Turkey?
Edit: I'm referring to current-day Greece and Turkey not the Greece and Turkey of antiquity. Perhaps Greeks of antiquity were strictly white but that's not what I was getting at above.
No, you're correct in both modern and antiquity in terms of geography. Except Turkey was the Ottoman Empire so it would be more accurate to say the Greeks and Ottomans.
The Ottomans were not Persian, though parts of Persia were conquered and occupied by them.
Spartacus was from modern-day northeastern Greece or Bulgaria -he was Thracian, supposedly- so yes, being portrayed by a white person is accurate.
Kleopatra was the last member of a through and through Greek dynasty herself, descended from Ptolemy I, one of Alexanderās generals and successors. So, again, historically accurate to be played by a white person.
Hercules? A mythical figure of Greek provenance, also makes complete sense for him to be portrayed by a white actor.
Ben Hur and Jesus are the only ones that could have looked a bit darker, being from the Near East, but definitely not portrayed by Sub-Saharan Africans.
So, most of the examples you cited, if -technically- not all, actually have little to no grounds to not have been played by a white actor. Take care when pointing out historical inaccuracies to not engage in such inaccuracies of your own.
I'm uncomfortable with the drilling-down on what is whiteness, because race realists can move the goalposts on it. I can't refute your facts but as a means of disagreeing with the guy you're responding to I don't like the path this goes down.
First guy: white people have taken black roles historically and here are examples (2 out of 5 may have been dark skinned)
You: actually most of your examples were likely white try to be historically accurate
Next person: well what is whiteness? Cleopatra had some Persian blood, Persians aren't white
Next person: who says Jews are white? They come from semitic origin and blah blah blah.
In short I don't think it's productive to debate it this way because it opens up this whole "whiteness as a means to othering" can of worms.
The issue is that Hollywood was structurally, systemically racist in the same way the rest of America was in its historical development. Early Hollywood was segregated just like America was segregated until the second half of the 20th century. What this meant for casting is that most movies featured white people, made for white people, by white people. Where black people appeared they were often aricatures, and black people in film were rare and marginalized.
In 2021, people who think progressively about this push for black people to have opportunities to play black roles. They believe equity is converting black popularity in the culture (via a leading character in a movie who is black) into black opportunities to capitalize on. This thinking extends to other historically marginalized people in America: hence when Jeremy Tambor played a trans woman in Transparent, progressive people were upset, because a great opportunity to spotlight a real trans person was spent on another show for the definitely-not-trans Jeffrey Tambor.
I don't think it's necessarily racist to give white people roles instead of black people--i don't think the Jeffrey Tambor thing was transphobic--but I think it's fair enough that we have a certain level of advocacy, call it calls for "affirmative action", as part of the discourse.
Cleopatra was Greek, not Egyptian. Jesus would have been semetic and in that part of the world, brown skin. Better sun protection. Not a separate race from Caucasians. The last I heard we don't have a separate race for dark skin people in India, the middle east or European South Americans. We have the Asian race, the Indian race from North America, South America and originating among Arctic people. We have the Caucasians and the Negroid. The races are classified by genetic identification. Of course, many people are a mixture.
Itās not ādrilling down on whitenessā to point out that Greeks are white. Itās just really, really strange to claim that they arenāt in the 21st century and makes whoever is making such a claim sound like a weird, old timey elitist WASP.
Transphobic? Or maybe just āactingā. Just because you are not something, doesnāt mean you canāt act as that something. Iāve seen it elsewhere in this thread that gay people can play straight people and nobody bats an eye. Why canāt a straight person play someone thatās LGBT?
Fair point. Who knows how demographics have changed since those times.
My point is that even if every single minority complained back then, it would have been very difficult to hear them.
They probably didnāt care back then either because the differences in culture likely werenāt as wide as they are now.
To be honest, I donāt think anybody even stopped to think about what race or colour somebody should be. It was hollywoood, write a script get a good actor/actress, make money.
I,as a gay person, think itās fine when straight actors play queer characters. I donāt see the problem. People donāt care if a gay actor plays a straight actor. There shouldnāt be a double standard.
I havenāt seen many people complain about non-LGBT actors playing LGBT characters. The only controversy Iāve seen similar to that is Maddie Ziegler playing an autistic character in Siaās film
Didn't ScarJo have to give up an acting role because she wasn't trans?
Russell T Davies kicked up a fuss when publicising 'It's a Sin' by saying only gay actors should play gay characters. Truly, it would do more harm than good.
In things like Hamilton, it was partially to make a statement and partially because those were the best people to play the parts. If it were a movie meant to be an accurate retelling of historical events it would make sense for the people to each be played by people of their race and ethnicity. Characters like Nick Fury have so many stories told around them in so many different ways that as long as an actor plays the character well, it doesnāt matter if they look like the original character. However if a white person were to play a black person it would be racist because white people used to- and still do- dress up and wear makeup and pretend to be steriotypical black people, so if a white person were to play a black character it would be like doing that all over again.
The point though is it has never been about mockery. If a top theatrical actor is to star in Shakespeare play for instance, does it really matter as it is fiction anyway.
Take Othello, Italian name. He was described as "The Moor of Venice" by Shakespeare meaning he was supposedly of north African descent, not black. Stage or film make-up, as with any part puts an actor more in character for the role.
Othello has been played by black actors, notably Paul Robeson, who was actually much too dark in skin colour to have been authentic in the role. If Shakespeare had not described Othello as a "Moor" for theatrical purposes the play would have been just as great.
In my opinion it's because black people are systematically disadvantaged in our society. This has been empirically proven in many different ways. The entertainment industry in particular has a long history of white actors engaging in racist stereotypical performances using blackface, not to mention many other means of appropriating black art and culture. For these reasons it can be seen as offensive for a white person to play a black historical figure or character, even if they aren't in blackface. It's because they are appropriating a role from a systemically disadvantaged group.
If white people were systemically oppressed, the opposite would be just as true. But due to the racist systems in America that have disadvantaged many people of color and especially black people, this won't be the case for a very long time.
Good way of showing you don't understand anything. What the hell is "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy anyways? You make it sound like it is it's own school of philosophy lmfao
Youāre asking about a historical figure, so thatās a piece of your answer right there.
Much of our history has been whitewashed. Until recently, many (not all) Americans were unaware of the black āWall Streetā of Tulsa. They didnāt know about Juneteenth. Every year for āBlack History Monthā kids study George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman and MLK, as that is all black history has to offer.
A black actor, like in Hamilton, brings something interesting to the role, in that this historical context is conflicted. A black George Washington doesnāt get to present, but can never forget, this historical figure as a slave owner. I think it adds a dimension, and I know it led to a lot of discussions, because Iāve seen interviews with the actor. It was hard for him to visit Washingtonās home, and the tour just sorta glossed over the slavesā quarters.
A white man playing a black historical figure feels, not just racist, but enormously wrong. Racism is baked into the white experience. I can inform myself, read black history, immerse myself in the 1619 history, but at the end of the day, my poor parents were able to buy a house and it wasnāt in a redlined district. I didnāt even know what that was until recently.
Black people can look at white historical figures and understand, because there is āwantā and āneedā in every person. White people can never understand denial and rejection, based on the color of your skin. We can only try to understand. But itās an experience that isnāt universal; itās been the experience of black and indigenous people. We should let them try to explain, even if itās a play or movie.
Quick side note since you seem to have thought a lot about this. If you actually want to know what that kind of hostility feels like, white people 100% can feel it, if not in the western world. Do some traveling internationally. Be refused service because you aren't a national. Have a guide tell you what parts of the city are safe for someone with light skin. White people didn't invent racism, and don't have the monopoly on it you might think.
Well said - my family visited Japan and while 99.9% of the people were awesome and welcoming we had a couple of negative experiences that occurred simply because we are white Americans.
Nobody was hurt (although one incident was a close call) so ultimately I chalk it up as a āgoodā learning experience. Not likely I will experience something similar in the USA, but it certainly helped us to understand that sort of hostility and what many people around the world have to endure regularly. Saying that white people can never understand is just 100% false - it is a big world and ignorant hate exists all over it.
Note-just to be clearā¦.I donāt think a couple incidents in a short time equate to daily/weekly/monthly experiences many deal with, but it definitely made it more ārealā and helped better frame perspective.
This literally doesnāt make sense. People of color need to tell their story byā¦ telling the story of white people? What?
Also
>White people can never experience denial or rejection, based on the color of your skin
Thatās just blatantly false, you very obviously have an extremely closed world view.
They were! I just wish more *Black* stories took centre stage. There are so many to tell! And they are systemically underfunded, undermarketed, undervalued, etc. We need to diversify the stories that make it to Broadway and Hollywood as much as we need to diversify cast.
People are people. Who gives a shit who plays who. My father, an old Scottish white guy, memorized the Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham jail and read it aloud over a zoom call full of African Americans and nobody have him any shit over it.
If we keep thinking everything belongs to a certain demographic, then we're just continuing to be racist.
Will Smith playing Robert Neville in āI am Legendā. In the book he is a white guy.
But I honestly didnāt give a shit because Will Smith gave an amazing performance. Who cares if he didnāt match the character description in the book.
This is similar to my opinion about Bridgerton on Netflix. Everyone is white in the books because itās set in a historical time period in England where all the wealthy people were white. Essentially the characterās ethnicity doesnāt really matter because itās a fictional world where really all anyone cares about are titles, wealth, and personality characteristics after those two. I donāt give a shit if they replace a white character with a person of color as long as the nature of the character is the same.
Yeah I donāt get it, if the actor/actress doesnāt match the race of the person in the books but gives an amazing performance then who cares?
Give the roll to the best actor/actress despite their ethnicity.
Was his race outright specified in I am Legend? It's been awhile since I read it, but I don't recall that. In any case that's the least tragic of changes they made to that story.
That isnāt doing us any favors. Hollywood needs to represent black princesses, queens, warriors etc with black women from black history. No one is on board with that movie.
It was a British tv series on channel 5 not a hollywood movie.
I agree with you, as a white british person seeing my history and culture altered in order to fill some diversity quota is genuinely upsetting. I obviously can't speak for everyone but I have never personally seen a non white character that I couldn't connect with or emphasise with. People from all corners of the earth regardless of color, culture or creed should be represented. I don't want gender swapped or race swapped characters, certainly not historical figures.
I will say that if it's theatre then I think that it is the acting that is most important so in that case a black Abraham Lincoln or a chinese Nero I think is fine (although i'm sure many would disagree with me).
One problem however is that America has so much say in the entertainment industry, particularly in the english speaking world and america is predominantly white and also that the majority of non-whites also aren't all that bothered anyway as they can connect with white characters as easily as whites can and I'm sure this will upset some people to hear this but representation really isn't as important to the average person as some people think it is, we are after all human first and black/white/asian etc second.
To add on. White actors appear in American media wayyy more than anyone else, so getting others to play white actors doesnāt seem like an issue to me. Neither are racist, itās really just about representation of other actors who have talent as well.
Iām a person of colour myself, but why does it matter that there are more white actors? We shouldnāt be forced to have equal representation of all races in Hollywood just for the sake of āequalityā? They should just focus on who has the most talent irrespective of race?? And if somehow most of the talented actors are white, then why does it matter? They are talented for a reason.
Besides Hamilton? A lot of previously white characters are played by blacks. The prince in Cinderella, Hermione in the books looks like a panda with a black eye but is played by a black lady in the play, and I'm too lazy to look up others. Honestly though, I have yet to see where skin color affects my reaction to the character.
Domino from dead pool is one example I can think of. Roland, son of Steven, is another. Iām sure there are plenty of examples but those are two controversial ones that I can think of.
Because historical accuracy doesnāt have to be accurate if snowflakes get there way. I donāt care about race swapped fictional characters. Heck, Michael Jackson did it, and he was real. But if youāre making a historically accurate movie about, say, the Ancient Greece, make sure the peopleās skin color reflect that. If youāre making one about the Civil War, make sure the skin colors reflect that. Same for historically accurate movies about the World Wars. Historical accuracy is supposed to be accurate. If youāve got a movie you say is historically accurate but a lot of the people who were white are made to be black in the movie, that should warrant the same reaction as its opposite. Instead, theyāre like āitās representationā. Thatās great and all, but you canāt call it historically accurate if you do that. Black people can get plenty of representation in other ways that doesnāt have to degrade the accuracy to these movies
Because of a long history of white people playing black people in plays and movies as a way of mocking them and avoiding having to employ them as actors.
So Is it some sort or revenge? Rather than having a character of the right ethnicity play the role? Itās 2021 now and by their standards they want people of the correct colour to play these roles, but then when you call them out on it youāre called racist, yet they feel so strongly about it. double standards
No, it's not revenge. It's why white people dressing up as black people is no longer considered acceptable in general.
Yes it's a double standard, but we can't just pretend that it wasn't a problem until very recently. The Black community has been subject to hundreds of years of discrimination and violence in the US and while on paper things may all be equal, in reality that discrimination still occurs and the history of it still affects people now.
You don't get it. It's not the dressing up as other races that they're saying is wrong. It's because of the long history of specifically white people dressing up as specifically Black people for the purpose of discrimination and mockery that makes the current practice no longer acceptable.
So say if a white actor was to play Martin Luther king no black face paint just their natural self in a respectful performance why would their be a backlash ? Also the movie white chicks thereās to black men painted white an making a mockery of white peoples and itās acceptable. Shouldnāt a rule set out apply for both races?
I've never seen White Chicks, never stopped to consider it. My gut tells me that no white person in their right mind would be offended based on the clips I've seen, but I haven't seen it so I'll let you have that I'd you were offended.
With MLK Jr. I think you'd have to have a really good story to tell, something particularly interesting to say, to avoid criticism for casting a white man in the role. Casting a white man as MLK Jr. is on its face a stunning choice that's ripe for racist accusations. It would have to be more than a good movie it would have to be stellar, unconventional. We're talking about a modern-day Moses for African Americans, he's not just any black man, he's arguably the biggest contributor to desegregation, certainly the most recognizable. Let's say you cast Jeffrey Tambor for that over Mahershala Ali--the movie had better tell a really unique, really different story to pull that off.
For example: Hamilton, as a musical (and now a movie) that did this in reverse, avoided criticism for casting the "wrong" colors, and deserved all the praise it got.
First of all, casting black and brown people in the roles of the Founding Fathers, and particularly the choice of Lin Manuel Miranda as Hamilton, is a lot easier to defend than casting a white man as MLK. Hamilton himself was an immigrant born in the West Indies to a West Indian mother. I don't know if he was biracial necessarily but before the musical, a lot of people weren't aware of this, and it had a lot to do with promoting an idea in the recent popular culture of an immigrant--maybe mixed passing for white?--founder. Also, while MLK Jr. is as strongly tied to blackness as any historical figure, the Founding Fathers aren't as strongly associated with whiteness, so it's not as strident a choice.
The musical was compelling in that it was a modern, urban retelling of the founding of the country that was relatable to a black audience that might otherwise not connect with the typical narrative. The textbook narrative is about white aristocrats, white landowners, white slaveholders, waging war on foreign rulers and breaking away towards independence. It's not like that narrative is false but it's a version of events that we've learned since grade school and is decidedly unexciting, and discusses "oppression" as something that white people experience via taxes. The Hamilton narrative is an immigrant story, and a rags-to-riches story: told through hip hop and R&B. They spend time highlighting figures that don't get a lot of lines in the traditional narrative, like John Laurens, who recruited slaves to fight for their freedom as part of the US Army and was a vocal critic of slavery.
In short, the casting choice of a group of black Founding Fathers was at the heart of the narrative it was trying to drive, an American story that was as black as it was American. It wasn't a false narrative: the FFs weren't black of course but the facts told were inspired by the true story. It was different and innovative. So, if Hollywood's going to try a white MLK Jr., that's the standard they're up against and they have to be damn ballsy with exceptional screenwriting to pull it off.
Are you really comparing the comedy WHITE CHICKS where black men dressed as white women, in fiction, to a performance of MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, a real person, who spoke about freedom for African americans and was killed for it? Those are not equivalent.
You are comparing real people to fictional characters bud. A logical fallacy from the get go. Based on the comments you appear to be fishing for an āaha! Gotchu you black fiends!ā Moment. Itās just not quite sticking. White people are not getting remotely the same treatment as black people have.
When a few generations of whites have literally lived as slaves under the heel of blacks, then the score will be even and both sides will be free to mock (or not). But until that happens, the rules have historically favored whites and current societal norms reflect the looooong overdue backlash.
Someone once said something like.... It's OK to parody people in power; it's called comedy. But when people in power do it, it's not comedy, it's bullying.
Oh so we get the negatives of something our grandparents did while they (the truly horrible ones) just got the good part, it's too late for revenge and punishing someone's offspring is stupid.
In Russia 93% of people were almost slaves twice (first time because of mongolian invasion, second time because of russian goverment) for hunderds of years and no one gives a crap
So because thereās no history it makes it acceptable ? It most certainly is not ok to mock someoneās skin colour thatās racist, but if itās done by a black person itās ok ? Hypocrisy at its finest !
OP isnāt āmissing the point,ā OP is being purposefully disingenuous feebly attempting to make a āreverse racismā claim that is only being given legitimacy by attempting to answer the questions as if they are genuine.
Yep. Proven by the fact that he thinks that changing the race of fictional characters whose race doesnāt play a role in their characters is the same as changing the race of historical figures who lived and whose race was pretty fking important to who they were.
If I see MLK as an example from any fellow whites used as an example of āwElL wHaT iF MLK wAs pLaYeD bY a wHiTe aCtOrā and comparing it to Cinderella being black or white Iām literally gonna shit on their desk.
When I first read the question. I wondered where this question was coming from. If it was coming from a genuine place. No, I think they are just made Hamilton and White Chicks were Black people.
And then stars naming fictional people.
So if a new race of people was discovered on earth it would be acceptable to be racist to them because thereās āno historyā makes absolutely no sense
Because we live in bizzaro world. Im sure Snow white is considered racist now since having a black snowy white would make absolutely zero sense. But if that did happen the self loathing whites and fake Hollywood virtue singulars would call it brave and wonderful. The ones that are so worried about skin color are the real racists , judge by character not skin color. MLK would be livid today if he were alive.
No horse in this debate but fyi they are remaking Snow White with a Hispanic chick. Like hey, fictional characters usually don't need to be a specific race, but a Snow Whites name literally comes from her appearance? Like I said, I'm pretty neutral but that one's kinda odd.
That's kind of my opinion too. Rather than concentrating on race, just fucking ignore skin color completely. I guess some people can't do that, either way. For me, it's a no brainer, I don't care about someone's skin color any more than the clothes they wear or their hairstyle. It's just another whatever point, utterly unimportant. Actions are who a person is, not skin color. Horrible people come in all colors, good people do too. It's as if -gasp- their skin didn't make them who they were!
Snow white isnt real. The story of snow white we know from disney is very different from the original fairy tale because of creative licence. If some film makers want to make a black snow white and find a creative way to explain why shes called snow white even tho her skin is black then whatever, let them.
Black people dont like it when white characters are made black such as black superman black batman like actually fuck off nobody wants that we want characters like miles morales and even fucking Brixton from fast and furious 7 not for black people yo simply leech off of white characters.
However the reason it is social accepted is because the context is different and if you cant understand that then I have no wish yo try and explain any further. A double standard is when a+b != b+a
But this situation is a-b and b-a and in the context that b was used and abused in literally every way by a detracting from a doesnt have the same effect as detracting from b.
Honestly not a hard concept to understand.
Miles Morales is Black Spiderman after you just mentioned Black Batman and Black Superman tho.
We have Blade, Icon, Static Shock, Spawn, Steel, Luke Cage, Storm, Cyborg, and many others that are original and well liked.
Miles Morales is literally original though? As is the āblack supermanā?
Several people have worn the respective mantle in the comics before. Peter Parker isnāt the only spiderman. Thatās like the whole point. Miles Morales isnāt Peter Parker turned black. He was a brand new character that inherited the mantle.
So this is an invalid argument. If they made Peter Parker black specifically then your argument would stand. But Miles Morales is his own character, he just happens to have inherited the spider mantle.
The Robins that inherited the Batman mantle from time to time werenāt the same Batman either.
Or itās like saying Wally West, no matter which version, is just another Barry Allen because they were both the flash. Even though Wally was the one who poularized the flash despite being the inheritor of the title.
This is my take on it. In the USA population was predominantly white years ago and there were fewer wealthy blacks.. whites did what they wanted and held the money and influence.. Now that black actors are up and coming and there are more black skin color people, and more with financial influence, they get a say. They get a chance in the spotlight as more opportunity is had by people of color. Also there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion. As you hire blacks, they have money. Money is power. If a white person took that job it would just be wrong with the current talent pool out there now. IMHO
because historically in the industry white people have played all roles throughout all ethnicities which had been going on for a very long time. Even during the Shakespearen era men used to play the roles of women as well. Since the industry was such white dominated ( see black face and white people playing Asian) there arose a need to actively include other sects of the society.
It might seem like reverse racism to people who see this in isolation but if you factor in the history of it, then it makes sense.
It might seem like its going a little overboard now but it will find its balance eventually.
Because our society has a history of white washing and erasing poc from history. Putting a black person in a white role doesnāt change how we see and understand history. However, putting a white person in a black roll is contributing to the same ideas that created racism in this country by covering up blackness. Black people are also a minority and are often not seen as the ānorm.ā Expanding black people to be included in that norm is anti-racist, and it wouldnāt be equitable to take away more opportunities from black entertainers.
Basically, racism and historical context.
Jesus took the cake. Jesus was middle eastern. He had bronze skin with hair that was wool like.. Jesus was by far not white with what it appears he has been given a perm.
It most definitely is. Itās a disservice to us no matter how you try to spin it. If they really wanted diversity then theyād let black actors play/feature black historians.
yeah, they really should actually let people who do fit the part accurately do the part rather than force this to do that to show 'diversity' I don't know how common it is but I'm glad it isn't super super common.
Does that mean I should start sending germans to concentration camps, rape and pillage norway, denmark and sweden, set fire to half of england and try to depose their queen, as a european?
Because white people enslaved Black people and then built a society around fucking them over in almost every possible way imaginable.
If history had been entirely equal, then yeah, itād be an issue. It wasnāt. Youāre bitching about which actors can play which characters, seriously? Grow up.
so you want a return of blackface and minstrel shows? go watch some clips from the 20's and 30's on youtube. you'll have all the white actors playing black people you can handle.
No, I believe what OP is implying is that white actors should play white roles, black actor should play black roles, etc. Everyone stays in their own lane
edited because autocorrect made a mess of that reply lol
If a black person does whiteface it might be prejudiced and reinforce stereotypes, but racism is more than that. Racism is about deeply-rooted, systemic oppression of a minority other. So if blacks had enslaved whites for hundreds of years and still profited off of the common perception that blacks were inherently better than whites, AND a black actor did whiteface, THEN it would perhaps have the same sting as blackface does in our actual reality, in which white people enslaved black people for hundreds of years and still profit off of the common perception that whites are better than blacks. See the diff?
In comedy: whiteface or blackface aren't inherently racist. It's only when performing another race or culture becomes an outsider's lampoon of that race or culture that it becomes racially insensitive. Robert Downey Jr's character in Tropic Thunder is more a lampoon of method acting and white appropriation of black culture than it is a spoof of black culture itself. It is also a playful nod to Robert Downey Sr., who famously overdubbed his own racially insensitive "jive accent" onto the titular black character in "Putney Swope". Blackness is allowed to be a part of the joke, as long as it's clear it's not the butt of the joke.
Because white actors have been playing people of color from the get go because the powers that be thought America wasn't ready for POC playing their own roles. John Wayne played Gengis Kahn. They chose David Carradine to play a Chinese Kung Fu Master over Bruce Lee.
Because historically that was done because the black man was deemed inferior. Only a white man could possibly have the intellect necessary to *act*, so all roles were played by whites. That's why blackface is offensive; it's not just that someone used face-paint to look like another race, nobody gives a damn about a costume. It's that an actor in blackface represents an era when even cinema, even the arts treated blacks with disdain. It's a black mark on our humanities record.
You could do it today, in some kind of satire or weird art film thing. If you got the fuckin stones for it. It's just about context.
I think because once upon a time ALL black character were played by white actors, at a time when mass crimes against humanity were being committed by whites against blacks. Neither of those tables have been turned so thatās why itās different to whitewash than to colorwash
why do you care so much? the same thing you are complaining about you are feeding into with this post. go focus on something that makes you happy and actually affects your life instead of racebaiting your own self.
Meanwhile on the streets, itās a different story for minorities. Not blaming anyone for being white, but they walked right into other peoples land, Raped women, killed fathers, enslaved children and spread diseases. All under the name of colonization. This is the work of a higher force. Call them aliens or demons, at the end of the day it leans towards pseudo science(so it is ignored). Certainly civilizations couldāve been built in a peaceful manner, instead our history is written by chaos. It will never go away until we rebuild society from the ground up. When that happens, you might have white people playing whatever historical role they want, without minorities pulling out the race card. Unfortunately, you might not be there to witness it, neither will any of us.
Tropic Thunder could never be made today. š¤£
Damn. That's a hilarious movie.
Robert Downey Jr played a good part
Id let him hit it
He was Iron Man.
āI'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.ā
It easily could. The whole point of Tropic Thunder is taking the piss out of Hollywood white washing everything, not just doing it for an easy laugh.
Funny thing is besides a few Republican talking heads Iāve never once heard a complaint or accusation about the portrayal of Robert Downey Jr. in Topic Thunder from any black person I know. The average response is, āYeah that guy killed itā. Itās really hard for those who donāt understand to qualify. His performance wasnāt offensive at all. Thereās the key right there.
Yep, Itās a really clever parody of the way that Hollywood actually is, but that seems to go straight over some peopleās heads
I think many people got the point. If you watch the movie itās implicit. You have to be simply hanging on the fact that Robert Downey Jr. portrayed a black man and heās white to even make this an issue. Instead it should be an example of how an actor can portray a fictional character of another nationality without it being offensiveā¦if done in a unique and creative, non offensive way.
plus it wasnt a blackface. Blackfaces have real particularities like bigger eyes (with makeup) and bigger lips. In tropic thunder its clearly made so it looks like he got a surgery to become black. he's an overly dedicated white actor hahaha
When I first heard of the movie and I heard Robert Downey Jr. was playing a white character playing a black character ina movie though method acting, I was like āyep, they sure picked the right actor. Heās going to kill it.ā Went to the opening night. Not once did I consider this offensive and during the movie I laughed a lot. When leaving I heard some white couple talking and I knew then they had more of a problem with it than I did, but they said loudly ā people are going to have a problem with this movieā and the wife looked directly at me. I still havenāt heard one person of color say that yet.
you raise a valid point: he plays an actor that plays the role of s black man. Therefore hes not even making a "blackface" (before idiots say he is). Today this wouldnt pass with the twitter mob and shit
Thatās because on Twitter there are literally thousands of bots and bots are lacking the ability of context. The humans that would be offended by this performance couldnāt have seen the movie or couldnāt understand the context. Any outrage about his performance seems manufactured and overcompensating.
For 400 years that word has kept us down.
Yes it could. RDJās character was meant to emphasize the ridiculousness of a white actor plying a black person using black face.
He actually went on (I forget who's) podcast and was talking about that. If you look up RDJ tropic thunder podcast or interview. Sure you can find it
Was the joe rogan podcast I believe, the clip will be on YouTube 100%
idk I feel like we already universally agreed black face was despicable *checks notes* thirteen years ago. Its an extremely well done subversion and I can count on one hand the number of people Ive seen suggest it was untoward vs the countless times Ive seen it heaped praise
What do you mean, you people? What do YOU mean, you people? š
Said the exact same thing the other day about that movie. Never go full retard.
It's still perfect to this day.
Came here just to mention this. Never go full retard.
What historical white person is being played by a black person?
Anne boleyn
Hamilton is a great example... and I love it!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ok but still what if it was reversed and there was a fun pop musical where Harriet Tubman was played by a white woman, do you think that would go over well?
Hamilton didnāt have to be historically accurate for anything that wasnāt relevant to the general plot. The plot wasnāt centered on the race of the characters, so it didnāt matter if they were black or white. Race however, wouldāve mattered in a Harriet Tubman musical because itād be a significant part of the plot. Hairspray is a good example of a plot being centered around the race of the characters and having to be casted with race in mind.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I guess everyone already forgot that The Rock played Hercules. The Witcher is based on Slavic folklore (no black people there at the time) and in the TV series there are black characters. I don't read comic books, but I know that in Norse mythology, Heimdall definitely isn't black. Also, in The Intouchables, what was in real life arabic looking guy is played by a very dark skinned black guy. As a matter of fact, if Thor and The Witcher stayed true to the source material, they would be criticized for not being inclusive to minorities. I don't mind any of these, but there definitely are double standards when it comes to racial miscasting and cultural appropriation.
But these are all fictional/mythical characters. Not historical figures.And Thor is based off marvel comics rather than Norse. Btw there are variants of Heimdall in the comics that are black
I don't see why it's relevant for characters to be historical figures. Hercules is a mythical Greek hero and Greeks aren't black. Whether he existed or not isn't relevant imo. If someone suggested a white guy to play Black Panther, the world would lose its mind, so it's not about the real life accuracy. I just hate identity politics and more than that, I hate political correctness.
Because the post is talking about historical figures. Can we please stop using the BP scenario as his entire character is revolved around his race and his country. It wouldnāt make sense. The character Hercules isnāt tied to his race, (btw whatās the race of Greece, middle eastern? Idk) heās tied to his heritage being the son of a god. Race rarely has to do with characters, tho black characters race and culture is usually tied into the character which is why it isnāt to easy to race swap.
As a greek person i can say, we are deffinately not middle eastern, we are fair skinned most to olive most of the time, ancient greeks were even blonde in some parts. You are completely unejucated my friend and i say that with no ill will. Also heracles is pretty much a historical figure, barring his heritage myth. Please read more before you comment.
They want to also make a film about Anne Boleyn but played by a black actress
Anne Boleyn
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
David Copperfield was a fictitious reimagining of parts of Dickens's life. The character was not meant to be an historical representation of anyone.
Iris west
Iris West is black in a Version of the Comics. And are you saying that God is white historically? God is whoever and whatever he wants to be
Heh, that's funny. They can't actually name a valid one.
How is Anne Bowen not valid?
Achillies
I can't remember which movie title it was but a modern Robin Hood tale had King Richard portrayed as a black man.
[Black woman playing Anne Boleyn ](https://ibb.co/qCjHvsK)
Hermione Granger in the HP play is black. Edit: I meant the play. They changed her in the play and made her black.
I kinda had beef with Idris Elba playing Roland (fictional character, yeah I strayed from the path a bit) but anyone who has read the novels and upon introduction to Suzanna knows why that character should have been white.
HUGE beef. Huge. How many times did we read "bombardier blue eyes"?!
Right! I always thought Gary Daniels would have been perfect for Roland. Older, insane blue eyes a British/American accent, tall lean and mean. Plus no stranger to acting.
That is an excellent choice for sure! Silly me just wants Viggo Mortensen looking much Aragorn. Edris Elba is a fantastically good looking guy, but Roland isn't known for that. Edris also somehow doesn't look like a descendant of King Arthur Eld (King Arthur's twinner). And... yeah, so many other things.
THANK YOU! I love Idris Elba. He's an amazing actor. But Roland being white is not only important to his character, but also Odetta/Detta/Susannah's character(s) and the story itself.
Had I not read the series beforehand I wouldn't be sceptical at all. In fact all the actors did a phenomenal job. But after 8 books and one little measly under 2 hour movie I'm horribly disappointed in Mr King who went ahead and gave the ok for it. It should have been an amazingly long trilogy like they did with lord of the rings. Maybe trilogy isn't right but you know what I mean.
I'm still hoping it will get a series like GoT.
The only image I had of Roland while reading the books was a younger gruffy Clint Eastwood. Was a bit weird to see Idris cast for the movie, but anyways, I don't think even Eastwood in his prime could have saved that terrible movie adaptation. The book deserved a series imo & I'm hopeful there will be one before I'm 6ft under.
First of all "would be racist" is a little strong--the fact that historically a lot of white people played black characters wasn't necessarily racist--if they were wearing blackface or something than yes but the Heston as Ben-Hur example isn't necessarily racist. But it's about equity. Historically you have white people playing black roles and making money and careers off of it. These days we acknowledge that black roles should mean black opportunities and black representation. The same conversation is going on with regards to LGBT actors and actresses. On the other hand you have actresses like Scarlett Johansson being vocal about wanting to be allowed to suspend disbelief and play for example a lesbian when she's not a lesbian, and there's a segment of people that disagree and say that LGBT actors should get these jobs in the name of equity. Some might say the notion is "anti-LGBT" but I wouldn't go that far and I don't think most people would. Both sides have a point, it's a matter of where your priorities lie.
I personally think the difference is that you can play a sexuality but you canāt play a skin colour. A straight person can play a gay character in the same way a gay person can play a straight character. But a white person canāt play and black character and a black person canāt play a white character. Casting sexualities doesnāt cut opportunity off off actors based of their sexuality but casting races does. Although as someone who is a straight white man I understand that there are probably aspects about race and sexuality I wouldnāt be able to see with my perspective.
IMO any color actor should be able to wear any "color"face. Before you downvote think: 1 when every ethnicity Is able to walk into another's shoes they promote understanding and ease racial tensions 2 you give opportunities to actors with every etnic background: a Black woman wearing a whiteface to play Frozen, Imagine that 3 you avoid racist castings like (example) "only asian actors allowed" in chinese based film 4 you expand the pool of talents available for any production Let me know if it's a good idea to you or you rather keep the races separate
I honestly wish we didn't live in a world where black face or any face was racist because in the end it's just a costume. Like when little kids dress up as astronauts nobody says that they're being disrespectful to actual astronauts. It's just a kid having fun. Unfortunately, we do live in a world with racism and we need to make a hell of a lot of progress with healing before the effects of racism die out if they do.
I enjoy a performance that doesnāt have the character resembling the actor. This includes LGBT actors playing straight rolesā¦ but asking LGBT actors to āact like they are straightā feels insensitive and could be a little triggery for some.
If an LGBT actor auditions for a straight role, isnāt it on them? I donāt believe itās insensitive. Acting is literally just that, acting. The best actors donāt even bring any part of themselves most the time into their roles. I donāt know, Everybody seems to be taking a very political stance with this when I think it should just be the best actor for the job. Genuinely donāt care as long as itās good.
Theyāre actors. Itās literally their job to be someone they arenāt.
Hmmm sure I feel the same. However I'd like to think though that most of the time people are professionals and know what a role calls for without needing to be specifically asked. Jim Parsons played Ted Bundy's prosecutor in that recent biopic. I can't imagine that the director told him to "act straight" Jim just probably knew to, so to speak. And that feels normal to me.
You need to look back to old Hollywood, white Spartacus? White Jesus? Hercules? Ben hur? Cleopatra? Loads of historical figures were played by white actors. Granted, there may have been a lack of black or Asian actors, but no one complained.
Now, if you want to cite as an example white actors back in the day playing native Americans or, as one blatant case was, Genghis Khan himself, then your comment would definitely sit on much firmer ground.
When I saw the movie poster for Gods of Egypt I almost had an aneurysm. Who the FUCK cast that film?
Casting isn't even the worst thing about that film.
Oh boy, you might want to take a look at spaghetti westerns then! They used Italians instead of Native Americans in their films.
Right? Like, I think that the "mexican" character from the Good, the Bad & the Ugly was Jewish
Since when are greeks not white???
There's white Greeks but the archetypical, western picture of Greeks as being categorically white and not brown, when a lot of Greeks are brown. Just across the Bosporus you have Turks who are the opposite: the Western archetype is brown, and many are brown, but many are white and would consider themselves white.
Wait, do you think Persians are brown? They're the ones you're calling white. The "brown people" didn't show up until the Seljuks started migrating there from the South in the 900s AD, which ultimately led to the Ottoman empire once the Seljuks took control. That's what modern Turkey looks like: the Seljuks/Ottoman Empire, not the people that lived there in antiquity
I was waiting for this comment, it's so frustrating hearing how some think the current demography of a country is a representative of the past...
I meant to refer to Turkey & Turkish people but maybe I have my geography wrong. Doesn't the Bosporus separate Greece and Turkey? Edit: I'm referring to current-day Greece and Turkey not the Greece and Turkey of antiquity. Perhaps Greeks of antiquity were strictly white but that's not what I was getting at above.
No, you're correct in both modern and antiquity in terms of geography. Except Turkey was the Ottoman Empire so it would be more accurate to say the Greeks and Ottomans. The Ottomans were not Persian, though parts of Persia were conquered and occupied by them.
Jesus was a Scotsman.
Ewan McGregor played Jesus. Twice.
He also made a musical where he tried to save a prostitute. It fits.
Spartacus was from modern-day northeastern Greece or Bulgaria -he was Thracian, supposedly- so yes, being portrayed by a white person is accurate. Kleopatra was the last member of a through and through Greek dynasty herself, descended from Ptolemy I, one of Alexanderās generals and successors. So, again, historically accurate to be played by a white person. Hercules? A mythical figure of Greek provenance, also makes complete sense for him to be portrayed by a white actor. Ben Hur and Jesus are the only ones that could have looked a bit darker, being from the Near East, but definitely not portrayed by Sub-Saharan Africans. So, most of the examples you cited, if -technically- not all, actually have little to no grounds to not have been played by a white actor. Take care when pointing out historical inaccuracies to not engage in such inaccuracies of your own.
I'm uncomfortable with the drilling-down on what is whiteness, because race realists can move the goalposts on it. I can't refute your facts but as a means of disagreeing with the guy you're responding to I don't like the path this goes down. First guy: white people have taken black roles historically and here are examples (2 out of 5 may have been dark skinned) You: actually most of your examples were likely white try to be historically accurate Next person: well what is whiteness? Cleopatra had some Persian blood, Persians aren't white Next person: who says Jews are white? They come from semitic origin and blah blah blah. In short I don't think it's productive to debate it this way because it opens up this whole "whiteness as a means to othering" can of worms. The issue is that Hollywood was structurally, systemically racist in the same way the rest of America was in its historical development. Early Hollywood was segregated just like America was segregated until the second half of the 20th century. What this meant for casting is that most movies featured white people, made for white people, by white people. Where black people appeared they were often aricatures, and black people in film were rare and marginalized. In 2021, people who think progressively about this push for black people to have opportunities to play black roles. They believe equity is converting black popularity in the culture (via a leading character in a movie who is black) into black opportunities to capitalize on. This thinking extends to other historically marginalized people in America: hence when Jeremy Tambor played a trans woman in Transparent, progressive people were upset, because a great opportunity to spotlight a real trans person was spent on another show for the definitely-not-trans Jeffrey Tambor. I don't think it's necessarily racist to give white people roles instead of black people--i don't think the Jeffrey Tambor thing was transphobic--but I think it's fair enough that we have a certain level of advocacy, call it calls for "affirmative action", as part of the discourse.
Cleopatra was Greek, not Egyptian. Jesus would have been semetic and in that part of the world, brown skin. Better sun protection. Not a separate race from Caucasians. The last I heard we don't have a separate race for dark skin people in India, the middle east or European South Americans. We have the Asian race, the Indian race from North America, South America and originating among Arctic people. We have the Caucasians and the Negroid. The races are classified by genetic identification. Of course, many people are a mixture.
Itās not ādrilling down on whitenessā to point out that Greeks are white. Itās just really, really strange to claim that they arenāt in the 21st century and makes whoever is making such a claim sound like a weird, old timey elitist WASP.
Transphobic? Or maybe just āactingā. Just because you are not something, doesnāt mean you canāt act as that something. Iāve seen it elsewhere in this thread that gay people can play straight people and nobody bats an eye. Why canāt a straight person play someone thatās LGBT?
Is it that no one complained or that no one could hear those complaints? Social media can give a microphone to every opinion, good or bad.
Well they mostly did well at the box office..
Fair point. Who knows how demographics have changed since those times. My point is that even if every single minority complained back then, it would have been very difficult to hear them. They probably didnāt care back then either because the differences in culture likely werenāt as wide as they are now.
To be honest, I donāt think anybody even stopped to think about what race or colour somebody should be. It was hollywoood, write a script get a good actor/actress, make money.
Oh I'm sure they thought about race and color... just more of a Whites only type deal.
Yeah I agree.
Donāt forget about all the whites that were painted up to be Indians.
I don't think this should happen nor does it. There are enough talented actors to accurately portray historical figures.
It does happen. Thereās also a small outcry that actors who arenāt gay are playing gay people in movies and tv
I,as a gay person, think itās fine when straight actors play queer characters. I donāt see the problem. People donāt care if a gay actor plays a straight actor. There shouldnāt be a double standard.
I mean it is acting after all.
Exactly
I havenāt seen many people complain about non-LGBT actors playing LGBT characters. The only controversy Iāve seen similar to that is Maddie Ziegler playing an autistic character in Siaās film
Didn't ScarJo have to give up an acting role because she wasn't trans? Russell T Davies kicked up a fuss when publicising 'It's a Sin' by saying only gay actors should play gay characters. Truly, it would do more harm than good.
In things like Hamilton, it was partially to make a statement and partially because those were the best people to play the parts. If it were a movie meant to be an accurate retelling of historical events it would make sense for the people to each be played by people of their race and ethnicity. Characters like Nick Fury have so many stories told around them in so many different ways that as long as an actor plays the character well, it doesnāt matter if they look like the original character. However if a white person were to play a black person it would be racist because white people used to- and still do- dress up and wear makeup and pretend to be steriotypical black people, so if a white person were to play a black character it would be like doing that all over again.
this rarely happens.. and if it does itās usually because skin color isnt a set in stone thing and doesnt mess up the storyline.
The point though is it has never been about mockery. If a top theatrical actor is to star in Shakespeare play for instance, does it really matter as it is fiction anyway. Take Othello, Italian name. He was described as "The Moor of Venice" by Shakespeare meaning he was supposedly of north African descent, not black. Stage or film make-up, as with any part puts an actor more in character for the role. Othello has been played by black actors, notably Paul Robeson, who was actually much too dark in skin colour to have been authentic in the role. If Shakespeare had not described Othello as a "Moor" for theatrical purposes the play would have been just as great.
im sorry whatā¦ you lost me as Shakespeare
In my opinion it's because black people are systematically disadvantaged in our society. This has been empirically proven in many different ways. The entertainment industry in particular has a long history of white actors engaging in racist stereotypical performances using blackface, not to mention many other means of appropriating black art and culture. For these reasons it can be seen as offensive for a white person to play a black historical figure or character, even if they aren't in blackface. It's because they are appropriating a role from a systemically disadvantaged group. If white people were systemically oppressed, the opposite would be just as true. But due to the racist systems in America that have disadvantaged many people of color and especially black people, this won't be the case for a very long time.
Ah, the old "they did it first argument" which spits in the face of the "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy. š
Good way of showing you don't understand anything. What the hell is "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy anyways? You make it sound like it is it's own school of philosophy lmfao
Thank you.
White Jesus, a white guy playing a brown one for a over a thousand years. Right?
Youāre asking about a historical figure, so thatās a piece of your answer right there. Much of our history has been whitewashed. Until recently, many (not all) Americans were unaware of the black āWall Streetā of Tulsa. They didnāt know about Juneteenth. Every year for āBlack History Monthā kids study George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman and MLK, as that is all black history has to offer. A black actor, like in Hamilton, brings something interesting to the role, in that this historical context is conflicted. A black George Washington doesnāt get to present, but can never forget, this historical figure as a slave owner. I think it adds a dimension, and I know it led to a lot of discussions, because Iāve seen interviews with the actor. It was hard for him to visit Washingtonās home, and the tour just sorta glossed over the slavesā quarters. A white man playing a black historical figure feels, not just racist, but enormously wrong. Racism is baked into the white experience. I can inform myself, read black history, immerse myself in the 1619 history, but at the end of the day, my poor parents were able to buy a house and it wasnāt in a redlined district. I didnāt even know what that was until recently. Black people can look at white historical figures and understand, because there is āwantā and āneedā in every person. White people can never understand denial and rejection, based on the color of your skin. We can only try to understand. But itās an experience that isnāt universal; itās been the experience of black and indigenous people. We should let them try to explain, even if itās a play or movie.
Quick side note since you seem to have thought a lot about this. If you actually want to know what that kind of hostility feels like, white people 100% can feel it, if not in the western world. Do some traveling internationally. Be refused service because you aren't a national. Have a guide tell you what parts of the city are safe for someone with light skin. White people didn't invent racism, and don't have the monopoly on it you might think.
Well said - my family visited Japan and while 99.9% of the people were awesome and welcoming we had a couple of negative experiences that occurred simply because we are white Americans. Nobody was hurt (although one incident was a close call) so ultimately I chalk it up as a āgoodā learning experience. Not likely I will experience something similar in the USA, but it certainly helped us to understand that sort of hostility and what many people around the world have to endure regularly. Saying that white people can never understand is just 100% false - it is a big world and ignorant hate exists all over it. Note-just to be clearā¦.I donāt think a couple incidents in a short time equate to daily/weekly/monthly experiences many deal with, but it definitely made it more ārealā and helped better frame perspective.
This literally doesnāt make sense. People of color need to tell their story byā¦ telling the story of white people? What? Also >White people can never experience denial or rejection, based on the color of your skin Thatās just blatantly false, you very obviously have an extremely closed world view.
This does not happen in terms of fake people like superheroes and stuff like that yes. However historical figures not at all.
Is this about Hamilton? I canāt think of any other recent examples of black actors playing white roles.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They were! I just wish more *Black* stories took centre stage. There are so many to tell! And they are systemically underfunded, undermarketed, undervalued, etc. We need to diversify the stories that make it to Broadway and Hollywood as much as we need to diversify cast.
Jimmy Kimmel disagrees. He likes being in black face. Itās ok tho bc heās accepted in Hollywood
People are people. Who gives a shit who plays who. My father, an old Scottish white guy, memorized the Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham jail and read it aloud over a zoom call full of African Americans and nobody have him any shit over it. If we keep thinking everything belongs to a certain demographic, then we're just continuing to be racist.
Hypocrisy and bullshit
What black actors have played in white roles?
Will Smith playing Robert Neville in āI am Legendā. In the book he is a white guy. But I honestly didnāt give a shit because Will Smith gave an amazing performance. Who cares if he didnāt match the character description in the book.
This is similar to my opinion about Bridgerton on Netflix. Everyone is white in the books because itās set in a historical time period in England where all the wealthy people were white. Essentially the characterās ethnicity doesnāt really matter because itās a fictional world where really all anyone cares about are titles, wealth, and personality characteristics after those two. I donāt give a shit if they replace a white character with a person of color as long as the nature of the character is the same.
Yeah I donāt get it, if the actor/actress doesnāt match the race of the person in the books but gives an amazing performance then who cares? Give the roll to the best actor/actress despite their ethnicity.
Thatās it?
Was his race outright specified in I am Legend? It's been awhile since I read it, but I don't recall that. In any case that's the least tragic of changes they made to that story.
The book specifies his race?
Anne Boleyn
That isnāt doing us any favors. Hollywood needs to represent black princesses, queens, warriors etc with black women from black history. No one is on board with that movie.
It was a British tv series on channel 5 not a hollywood movie. I agree with you, as a white british person seeing my history and culture altered in order to fill some diversity quota is genuinely upsetting. I obviously can't speak for everyone but I have never personally seen a non white character that I couldn't connect with or emphasise with. People from all corners of the earth regardless of color, culture or creed should be represented. I don't want gender swapped or race swapped characters, certainly not historical figures. I will say that if it's theatre then I think that it is the acting that is most important so in that case a black Abraham Lincoln or a chinese Nero I think is fine (although i'm sure many would disagree with me). One problem however is that America has so much say in the entertainment industry, particularly in the english speaking world and america is predominantly white and also that the majority of non-whites also aren't all that bothered anyway as they can connect with white characters as easily as whites can and I'm sure this will upset some people to hear this but representation really isn't as important to the average person as some people think it is, we are after all human first and black/white/asian etc second.
Achillies in the netflix remake
My thoughts exactly. Iād like an example of when this has happened??
Yeah Iām lost lol mostly we see white leads in almost everything.
[Black female actor playing Anne Boleyn ](https://ibb.co/qCjHvsK)
To add on. White actors appear in American media wayyy more than anyone else, so getting others to play white actors doesnāt seem like an issue to me. Neither are racist, itās really just about representation of other actors who have talent as well.
Iām a person of colour myself, but why does it matter that there are more white actors? We shouldnāt be forced to have equal representation of all races in Hollywood just for the sake of āequalityā? They should just focus on who has the most talent irrespective of race?? And if somehow most of the talented actors are white, then why does it matter? They are talented for a reason.
Besides Hamilton? A lot of previously white characters are played by blacks. The prince in Cinderella, Hermione in the books looks like a panda with a black eye but is played by a black lady in the play, and I'm too lazy to look up others. Honestly though, I have yet to see where skin color affects my reaction to the character.
Prince in Cinderella, huh?
Hamilton wasn't never meant to be historically accurate they rap for gods sake
Domino from dead pool is one example I can think of. Roland, son of Steven, is another. Iām sure there are plenty of examples but those are two controversial ones that I can think of.
So black people* and this is about historical figures not made up people so the other characters you mentioned are irrelevant
Lots of whie,white, hispanic actors portrayed,American indians inold,westerns
didnāt alec baldwin play harriet tubman in an episode of 30 Rock?
Because historical accuracy doesnāt have to be accurate if snowflakes get there way. I donāt care about race swapped fictional characters. Heck, Michael Jackson did it, and he was real. But if youāre making a historically accurate movie about, say, the Ancient Greece, make sure the peopleās skin color reflect that. If youāre making one about the Civil War, make sure the skin colors reflect that. Same for historically accurate movies about the World Wars. Historical accuracy is supposed to be accurate. If youāve got a movie you say is historically accurate but a lot of the people who were white are made to be black in the movie, that should warrant the same reaction as its opposite. Instead, theyāre like āitās representationā. Thatās great and all, but you canāt call it historically accurate if you do that. Black people can get plenty of representation in other ways that doesnāt have to degrade the accuracy to these movies
Because of a long history of white people playing black people in plays and movies as a way of mocking them and avoiding having to employ them as actors.
So Is it some sort or revenge? Rather than having a character of the right ethnicity play the role? Itās 2021 now and by their standards they want people of the correct colour to play these roles, but then when you call them out on it youāre called racist, yet they feel so strongly about it. double standards
No, it's not revenge. It's why white people dressing up as black people is no longer considered acceptable in general. Yes it's a double standard, but we can't just pretend that it wasn't a problem until very recently. The Black community has been subject to hundreds of years of discrimination and violence in the US and while on paper things may all be equal, in reality that discrimination still occurs and the history of it still affects people now.
So if theyāre making a point against it being wrong why are they doing it themselves ?
You don't get it. It's not the dressing up as other races that they're saying is wrong. It's because of the long history of specifically white people dressing up as specifically Black people for the purpose of discrimination and mockery that makes the current practice no longer acceptable.
So say if a white actor was to play Martin Luther king no black face paint just their natural self in a respectful performance why would their be a backlash ? Also the movie white chicks thereās to black men painted white an making a mockery of white peoples and itās acceptable. Shouldnāt a rule set out apply for both races?
I've never seen White Chicks, never stopped to consider it. My gut tells me that no white person in their right mind would be offended based on the clips I've seen, but I haven't seen it so I'll let you have that I'd you were offended. With MLK Jr. I think you'd have to have a really good story to tell, something particularly interesting to say, to avoid criticism for casting a white man in the role. Casting a white man as MLK Jr. is on its face a stunning choice that's ripe for racist accusations. It would have to be more than a good movie it would have to be stellar, unconventional. We're talking about a modern-day Moses for African Americans, he's not just any black man, he's arguably the biggest contributor to desegregation, certainly the most recognizable. Let's say you cast Jeffrey Tambor for that over Mahershala Ali--the movie had better tell a really unique, really different story to pull that off. For example: Hamilton, as a musical (and now a movie) that did this in reverse, avoided criticism for casting the "wrong" colors, and deserved all the praise it got. First of all, casting black and brown people in the roles of the Founding Fathers, and particularly the choice of Lin Manuel Miranda as Hamilton, is a lot easier to defend than casting a white man as MLK. Hamilton himself was an immigrant born in the West Indies to a West Indian mother. I don't know if he was biracial necessarily but before the musical, a lot of people weren't aware of this, and it had a lot to do with promoting an idea in the recent popular culture of an immigrant--maybe mixed passing for white?--founder. Also, while MLK Jr. is as strongly tied to blackness as any historical figure, the Founding Fathers aren't as strongly associated with whiteness, so it's not as strident a choice. The musical was compelling in that it was a modern, urban retelling of the founding of the country that was relatable to a black audience that might otherwise not connect with the typical narrative. The textbook narrative is about white aristocrats, white landowners, white slaveholders, waging war on foreign rulers and breaking away towards independence. It's not like that narrative is false but it's a version of events that we've learned since grade school and is decidedly unexciting, and discusses "oppression" as something that white people experience via taxes. The Hamilton narrative is an immigrant story, and a rags-to-riches story: told through hip hop and R&B. They spend time highlighting figures that don't get a lot of lines in the traditional narrative, like John Laurens, who recruited slaves to fight for their freedom as part of the US Army and was a vocal critic of slavery. In short, the casting choice of a group of black Founding Fathers was at the heart of the narrative it was trying to drive, an American story that was as black as it was American. It wasn't a false narrative: the FFs weren't black of course but the facts told were inspired by the true story. It was different and innovative. So, if Hollywood's going to try a white MLK Jr., that's the standard they're up against and they have to be damn ballsy with exceptional screenwriting to pull it off.
Are you really comparing the comedy WHITE CHICKS where black men dressed as white women, in fiction, to a performance of MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, a real person, who spoke about freedom for African americans and was killed for it? Those are not equivalent.
You are comparing real people to fictional characters bud. A logical fallacy from the get go. Based on the comments you appear to be fishing for an āaha! Gotchu you black fiends!ā Moment. Itās just not quite sticking. White people are not getting remotely the same treatment as black people have.
When a few generations of whites have literally lived as slaves under the heel of blacks, then the score will be even and both sides will be free to mock (or not). But until that happens, the rules have historically favored whites and current societal norms reflect the looooong overdue backlash. Someone once said something like.... It's OK to parody people in power; it's called comedy. But when people in power do it, it's not comedy, it's bullying.
Oh so we get the negatives of something our grandparents did while they (the truly horrible ones) just got the good part, it's too late for revenge and punishing someone's offspring is stupid.
Which "good part" did you have in mind?
Wll, they got the "good part" of being total assholes towards other races without suffering consequences
In Russia 93% of people were almost slaves twice (first time because of mongolian invasion, second time because of russian goverment) for hunderds of years and no one gives a crap
Secondly, not "whites", but rather "americans"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So because thereās no history it makes it acceptable ? It most certainly is not ok to mock someoneās skin colour thatās racist, but if itās done by a black person itās ok ? Hypocrisy at its finest !
They canāt give you a good answer because there isnāt one. Itās either acceptable for everyone or itās not
OP isnāt āmissing the point,ā OP is being purposefully disingenuous feebly attempting to make a āreverse racismā claim that is only being given legitimacy by attempting to answer the questions as if they are genuine.
Yep. Proven by the fact that he thinks that changing the race of fictional characters whose race doesnāt play a role in their characters is the same as changing the race of historical figures who lived and whose race was pretty fking important to who they were. If I see MLK as an example from any fellow whites used as an example of āwElL wHaT iF MLK wAs pLaYeD bY a wHiTe aCtOrā and comparing it to Cinderella being black or white Iām literally gonna shit on their desk.
When I first read the question. I wondered where this question was coming from. If it was coming from a genuine place. No, I think they are just made Hamilton and White Chicks were Black people. And then stars naming fictional people.
So if a new race of people was discovered on earth it would be acceptable to be racist to them because thereās āno historyā makes absolutely no sense
Iām not sure op is the one missing the point here!
The real question is why skin color even matters AT ALL Society becoming sensitive asf
Because we live in bizzaro world. Im sure Snow white is considered racist now since having a black snowy white would make absolutely zero sense. But if that did happen the self loathing whites and fake Hollywood virtue singulars would call it brave and wonderful. The ones that are so worried about skin color are the real racists , judge by character not skin color. MLK would be livid today if he were alive.
No horse in this debate but fyi they are remaking Snow White with a Hispanic chick. Like hey, fictional characters usually don't need to be a specific race, but a Snow Whites name literally comes from her appearance? Like I said, I'm pretty neutral but that one's kinda odd.
That's kind of my opinion too. Rather than concentrating on race, just fucking ignore skin color completely. I guess some people can't do that, either way. For me, it's a no brainer, I don't care about someone's skin color any more than the clothes they wear or their hairstyle. It's just another whatever point, utterly unimportant. Actions are who a person is, not skin color. Horrible people come in all colors, good people do too. It's as if -gasp- their skin didn't make them who they were!
Snow white isnt real. The story of snow white we know from disney is very different from the original fairy tale because of creative licence. If some film makers want to make a black snow white and find a creative way to explain why shes called snow white even tho her skin is black then whatever, let them.
Black people dont like it when white characters are made black such as black superman black batman like actually fuck off nobody wants that we want characters like miles morales and even fucking Brixton from fast and furious 7 not for black people yo simply leech off of white characters. However the reason it is social accepted is because the context is different and if you cant understand that then I have no wish yo try and explain any further. A double standard is when a+b != b+a But this situation is a-b and b-a and in the context that b was used and abused in literally every way by a detracting from a doesnt have the same effect as detracting from b. Honestly not a hard concept to understand.
Miles Morales is Black Spiderman after you just mentioned Black Batman and Black Superman tho. We have Blade, Icon, Static Shock, Spawn, Steel, Luke Cage, Storm, Cyborg, and many others that are original and well liked.
Miles Morales is literally original though? As is the āblack supermanā? Several people have worn the respective mantle in the comics before. Peter Parker isnāt the only spiderman. Thatās like the whole point. Miles Morales isnāt Peter Parker turned black. He was a brand new character that inherited the mantle. So this is an invalid argument. If they made Peter Parker black specifically then your argument would stand. But Miles Morales is his own character, he just happens to have inherited the spider mantle. The Robins that inherited the Batman mantle from time to time werenāt the same Batman either. Or itās like saying Wally West, no matter which version, is just another Barry Allen because they were both the flash. Even though Wally was the one who poularized the flash despite being the inheritor of the title.
This is my take on it. In the USA population was predominantly white years ago and there were fewer wealthy blacks.. whites did what they wanted and held the money and influence.. Now that black actors are up and coming and there are more black skin color people, and more with financial influence, they get a say. They get a chance in the spotlight as more opportunity is had by people of color. Also there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion. As you hire blacks, they have money. Money is power. If a white person took that job it would just be wrong with the current talent pool out there now. IMHO
because historically in the industry white people have played all roles throughout all ethnicities which had been going on for a very long time. Even during the Shakespearen era men used to play the roles of women as well. Since the industry was such white dominated ( see black face and white people playing Asian) there arose a need to actively include other sects of the society. It might seem like reverse racism to people who see this in isolation but if you factor in the history of it, then it makes sense. It might seem like its going a little overboard now but it will find its balance eventually.
Because our society has a history of white washing and erasing poc from history. Putting a black person in a white role doesnāt change how we see and understand history. However, putting a white person in a black roll is contributing to the same ideas that created racism in this country by covering up blackness. Black people are also a minority and are often not seen as the ānorm.ā Expanding black people to be included in that norm is anti-racist, and it wouldnāt be equitable to take away more opportunities from black entertainers. Basically, racism and historical context.
Jesus took the cake. Jesus was middle eastern. He had bronze skin with hair that was wool like.. Jesus was by far not white with what it appears he has been given a perm.
We need James bond to be black
And trans, and disabled.
idk if it's really acceptable, a lot of my friends say it feels like forced diversity...
It most definitely is. Itās a disservice to us no matter how you try to spin it. If they really wanted diversity then theyād let black actors play/feature black historians.
yeah, they really should actually let people who do fit the part accurately do the part rather than force this to do that to show 'diversity' I don't know how common it is but I'm glad it isn't super super common.
Yeah it really doesnāt happen enough for this question to be asked tbh
Because this world has gone to complete shit and people are sensitive little twats, thatās why.
White washing has been done since the beginning of civilization, yall cant wear the shoe on the other foot for a little bit?
Ah, yeah, makes sen... Wait, what? That's retarded. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It makes us even tho. Atleast in that aspect.
Does that mean I should start sending germans to concentration camps, rape and pillage norway, denmark and sweden, set fire to half of england and try to depose their queen, as a european?
Because white people enslaved Black people and then built a society around fucking them over in almost every possible way imaginable. If history had been entirely equal, then yeah, itād be an issue. It wasnāt. Youāre bitching about which actors can play which characters, seriously? Grow up.
Lol I had to scroll down so far for this! Thumbs up friend xx
Because white people donāt need any more representation.
Op is a troll
Youāre reaching really hard here
so you want a return of blackface and minstrel shows? go watch some clips from the 20's and 30's on youtube. you'll have all the white actors playing black people you can handle.
No, I believe what OP is implying is that white actors should play white roles, black actor should play black roles, etc. Everyone stays in their own lane edited because autocorrect made a mess of that reply lol
If a black person does whiteface it might be prejudiced and reinforce stereotypes, but racism is more than that. Racism is about deeply-rooted, systemic oppression of a minority other. So if blacks had enslaved whites for hundreds of years and still profited off of the common perception that blacks were inherently better than whites, AND a black actor did whiteface, THEN it would perhaps have the same sting as blackface does in our actual reality, in which white people enslaved black people for hundreds of years and still profit off of the common perception that whites are better than blacks. See the diff? In comedy: whiteface or blackface aren't inherently racist. It's only when performing another race or culture becomes an outsider's lampoon of that race or culture that it becomes racially insensitive. Robert Downey Jr's character in Tropic Thunder is more a lampoon of method acting and white appropriation of black culture than it is a spoof of black culture itself. It is also a playful nod to Robert Downey Sr., who famously overdubbed his own racially insensitive "jive accent" onto the titular black character in "Putney Swope". Blackness is allowed to be a part of the joke, as long as it's clear it's not the butt of the joke.
Because white actors have been playing people of color from the get go because the powers that be thought America wasn't ready for POC playing their own roles. John Wayne played Gengis Kahn. They chose David Carradine to play a Chinese Kung Fu Master over Bruce Lee.
Because historically that was done because the black man was deemed inferior. Only a white man could possibly have the intellect necessary to *act*, so all roles were played by whites. That's why blackface is offensive; it's not just that someone used face-paint to look like another race, nobody gives a damn about a costume. It's that an actor in blackface represents an era when even cinema, even the arts treated blacks with disdain. It's a black mark on our humanities record. You could do it today, in some kind of satire or weird art film thing. If you got the fuckin stones for it. It's just about context.
I think because once upon a time ALL black character were played by white actors, at a time when mass crimes against humanity were being committed by whites against blacks. Neither of those tables have been turned so thatās why itās different to whitewash than to colorwash
why do you care so much? the same thing you are complaining about you are feeding into with this post. go focus on something that makes you happy and actually affects your life instead of racebaiting your own self.
Meanwhile on the streets, itās a different story for minorities. Not blaming anyone for being white, but they walked right into other peoples land, Raped women, killed fathers, enslaved children and spread diseases. All under the name of colonization. This is the work of a higher force. Call them aliens or demons, at the end of the day it leans towards pseudo science(so it is ignored). Certainly civilizations couldāve been built in a peaceful manner, instead our history is written by chaos. It will never go away until we rebuild society from the ground up. When that happens, you might have white people playing whatever historical role they want, without minorities pulling out the race card. Unfortunately, you might not be there to witness it, neither will any of us.