The real question is that why, despite all her fame, money, looks and talent Angelina Jolie has been unable to associate herself with a decent movie in the last decade or so?
Also for all I know Angelina Jolie is Cuban/Dutch/Afro whatever.
She is part Native American, isn’t she?
Yup. So maybe, maybe, maybe the fact that Angelina’s white and a bigger seat draw than certain black actresses and the whole interracial thing and blah blah blah had a slight effect on her casting. But I’d say the real reason she was cast is that she’s a good actress who looks a little like Mrs. Pearl and her boyfriend wants to give her a movie role that will almost certainly result in an Oscar nom. If Brad Pitt had hooked up with Halle Berry or Thandie Newton or Salma Hayek, we’d probably have seen one of them cast in that role right now.
Malodorous - I suppose that depends on your taste. In the last ten years, she won Golden Globes for George Wallace, Gia, and Girl, Interrupted (which also gave her an Oscar), so someone thought those were decent. If those aren’t recent enough for ya, Mr and Mrs Smith managed to bring in almost $500 million worldwide last year, so I guess some people thought that was decent as well.
I’m sorry, I just find this funny. It seems to be the default comment whenever an actor’s ‘degree of whiteness’ is being questioned.
Or TV shows, like Firefly.
wait a minute…
You know, I’m having trouble thinking of some. Care to supply a few titles?
Heh, shoulda actually looked up the dates of movies before I posted. In my head, Girl, Interupted was 10 years ago. But seems like since then (when she won her Oscar and became a “Big Name”) she hasn’t been in any decent movies. Granted Mrs Smith and Tomb Raider made the big $$, but I wouldn’t call them good in any other sense (YMMV of course).
Well, if we can call a woman of African, Cuban, and Dutch heritage “black”, then what should we really call a woman of European and Native American heritage? Ms. Jolie might even qualify for tribal membership, for all I know.
Anyway, I personally don’t understand the casting, as I don’t see much of a resemblance between Ms. Jolie and Ms. Pearl, especially in the lips, and there are some pretty big bone-structure differences as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Jolie could get as dark as Ms. Pearl in the picture with some heavy tanning, as she seems to be pretty darkly-complected, at least in some photos I’ve seen, but that’s not enough.
The stage is actually way ahead on this one. I saw a production of The Taming of the Shrew where Baptista was played by a black actor, Kate by a white actress, and Bianca by an Asian actress.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
Bowling for Columbine
Bend it Like Beckham
Not that it matters, but if she has any Native American heritage at all, it is about as diluted as that of (I’d estimate) millions of other Americans. I’ve read rather a lot on her and I never recall seeing any mention of this.
If I can try to address the larger question I think the OP was going for: should an actor look like the person they’re playing in a biopic?
I think it’s not really so important for people who aren’t well known. Frankly, I had to look up the name Mariane Pearl, and then I had to look up Daniel Pearl, and than a tiny 10 watt lightbulb went off in my head. He barely qualifies in my consciousness as a public figure, she not at all. So, if it were not for this thread, I wouldn’t have known what she looked like before seeing Angelina in the role, and probably would have accepted it just fine.
Would I be distracted if Denzel Washington was cast as Lance Armstrong in a biopic? Probaby, for the first ten minutes, simply because I’m more aware of Armstrong and what he looks like. Then, if the performance was good, I’d forget about it.
Similarly, I don’t think historical figures need to be played by people who look like them, because I just don’t care. Cate Blanchett looks not one white like Queen Elizabeth ('though of course they colored her hair red), and I thought her portrayal of Elizabeth was fantastic. Ditto Dame Judy Dench, who looks nothing like Elizabeth *or *Cate Blanchette. (I actually saw *Elizabeth *and *Shakespeare in Love *back-to-back in the theater. What a treat that was!) Is there some unknown British actress who is the spitting image of Queen Bess who’s out of work because some Australian bint got the role? Probably. But I can’t bring myself to care much.
I don’t even think it a requirement that a person be of the proper race for a race-related storyline. I thought Anthony Hopkins played a wonderful mixed-race character, despite the fact that he’s about as white as it gets.
monstro, when you bring race into casting, you’re going a step further than just looks. Now, for this specific movie, it almost sounds as if you think a black woman is entitled to the role, simply because she’s black, and Angelina isn’t. I don’t buy it. If Angelina can bring everything to the role that it needs, then she’s just as entitled to play it as anyone.
I might as well ask why Hollywood asked Renee Zellweger to gain weight for Bridget Jone’s Diary, or Christian Bale to lose weight for The Machinist when there are over and underweight actors out there. The answer is that for one reason or another, the casting director thought they were right for the role.
If the role requires a person to be a dark-skinned black because of the plot, then you either cast a dark-skinned black, or you do something with effects to make the actor dark-skinned. Obviously, this isn’t the case with this one. Even if it turns out that part of the plot requires Mariane to be mixed race, Angelina can “pass” as a mixed-race character because mixed-race people can look like Angelina Jolie. (Well, as much as anyone can look like Angelina Jolie!)
WTF.
Make up your mind. Is this a “frank discussion on race” or “a trivial subject”? It can’t be both.
Forgot to address this part:
Well, come on. It’s pretty clear that in this particular case, Angelina wanted the role AND her husband is producing the film! If Momma wants the part, Momma gets the part, you know what I’m sayin’?
But for the question at large, I do think it just comes down to box office. White star = movie. Black star = black movie. Black people buy just as many tickets to “movie” and “black movie”, but less white people will buy tickets to “black movie”. Simple profit motive, nothing more nefarious.
Similarly, action adventure movies aimed at kids are cast with teenagers in the lead, rather than 9 year olds. 9 year olds will watch a movie with a teen star, but teenagers won’t watch a movie with a 9 year old star. Likewise, teachers will choose books with male protagonists for whole classroom reading, because girls will relate to male protagonists, but boys seldom relate to female protagonists. Because of this, until recently, it was hard to find a decent young adult book with a female protagonist, because publishers were reluctant to market a book with “limited market appeal”.
Will this change with time? I think so. I hope so. I, for one, think Thandie Newton is a fantastic actress, and could herself play a wonderful Queen Elizabeth. I’d watch it.
Could be. I read somewhere her mother was something like French-Iroquois, which seemed to suggest something substantial, but it’s entirely possible the French far outweighs the Iroquois. I supposedly have some Abenaki in me, but this is via a great grandmother, and the telling “evidence” is an old photograph and suspicious lack of birth records. I’d never state to anyone that I had “Native American” heritage, even if the lineage could be substantiated, as it’s so dilute. I guess I’m assuming anyone who brings it up must be at least 1/4 or 1/6 whatever tribe.
And you would be pretty wrong most of the time. There are chiefs of tribes who are 1/16. There was the congressman who ran as an indian who was maybe 1/8.
I venture that most American’s think they have some American Indian in them.
I would also venture that most of them are wrong.
Hmm. If this Wikipedia entry on Marcheline Bertrand is correct, it would make Ms. Jolie 1/4 Iroquois.
More Indian than an Indian Chief, it would seem.
That would be a very big If. 
I had heard her interview on NPR about a year ago. I don’t remember the interviewer ever having asked about her race (probably not), but I do remember knowing right away that I was listening to a black woman.
But it wasn’t until I had created this thread that I really knew what she looked like.
I would be distracted, but that’s not to say the movie wouldn’t be good. I just think it would be strange. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if people thought the makers of the movie were trying to make a political statement. PC-ness gone awry, people would exclaim!
I do agree that there is a difference between a historical figure and a contemporary person.
However, I do think appearances matter to a degree, even with historical figures. Blond-haired, blue-eyed Charlton Heston was able to play an olive-skinned Semite because, at the time The Ten Commandments was produced, few people were aware that he didn’t look like a stereotypical Hebrew. Even if they had, the political climate was different. No one would have cared.
But I don’t think a blond-haired, blue-eyed Moses would be widely accepted today. Even if they hired the best actor on the block, I think there would be a certain outcry, or at least concern about the lack of historical detail.
Great acting is important, but I know that I don’t watch a movie to study the actor’s performances. I watch movies to escape from real life…to emerse myself in a 90-minute-long experience. Realism is needed to maintain this, and it comes when you don’t see the seams of a movie’s production. Seeing Denzel playing Lance Armstrong, to me, would be like seeing the seams.
I thought he did okay. But for some reason, I found the younger Coleman Silk more believable than the older one…and this was after I had learned of the younger actor’s background.
Speaking of The Human Stain, Imitation of Life is another great example. Most people are not aware that there were two movies with this title: one from the 30s and one from the 60s. Both are good (not award-winning, but good), but while the earlier film is definitely rife with annoying stereotypes, I prefer it over the later film. Why? Well, there are a number of reasons, and I won’t bore you with them. But one reason is that the role of Peola (Sarah Jane in the later film) was played by a black woman, Fredi Washington. Does this mean I think Susan Kohner did a lousy job? No, she did fine. But I think Fredi Washington was well-suited for the role, being an actress who could personally identify with the struggle illustrated in the movie.
I never said anyone was entitled to the role. No one is entitled to any role, nor should they be. But I do sympathize with the frustration that many non-white actors probably feel when a white star is selected for one of those rare parts that are suited for them. Except for an elite star like Halle Berry, who is lucky enough to have parts written specifically for her, I can’t see too many black actresses outcompeting white actresses for major roles. I know if I were someone like Thandie Newton, I would wonder if this meant the competition was truly opening up so that black actors were no longer type-cast. Can Thandie (or someone comparable) now compete with Jolie on equal footing? Will we ever see black actors being giving roles that require them to play white people, or will the color-bending continue to be one-sided? If not, I think cries of “unfairness” are not unwarranted. Yeah, life is unfair and Hollywood is no exception, but that doesn’t mean it can’t sting like a bitch.
I have no doubt that the casting director thought Jolie would be great for the role…and I’m not disagreeing with this decision. But surely you would agree that it’s alright for someone to question whether or not a casting decision was the right one? I mean, Jolie is exotic enough so she might be able to pass as anything and everything. And her acting skills are solid. But what if the casting director had chosen Britney Spears? Shit, I might be tempted to see the movie if Britney Spears is in it, just to watch the train wreck! I’m exaggerating, of course, to make a point: ultimately all decisions in the movie-making business rest on profit margin. But that doesn’t make those decisions right or artistically sound. Just because an actor is chosen doesn’t make them right for the part.
Ew. I don’t think I like the make-up idea, but YMMV.
But you just made me think of something: Dreamgirls. The overt premise of the musical is the life of an all-black girl group from Detroit (like the Supremes) and their struggle to make it “big”. But interwoven in the subtext is the rise of a dark-skinned black girl–the lead of the group. There isn’t just a struggle against racism, but also colorism–the preference of light-skinned blacks over dark-skinned blacks.
Beyonce Knowles will be playing the part of the lead in the movie version of this musical. There has been some displeasure about this casting choice, because it glosses over the story’s subtext (Knowles is light skinned). So…even when casting is race-specific, there can be some racial considerations that aren’t always obvious.
Why do you think that? I really don’t care much either way, but there seems to be this strong resistence to the notion that Angeline Jolie could be as Indian as, say, I am Irish. I don’t find it that hard to swallow, and it might have had something to do with the casting for all I know. What’s the big deal?