Ignoring that changes the context of the quote. Which is probably why you continue to ignore it.
But no matter.
“Don’t be surprised if Jobs is played by a white guy if he was white in real life” and “Don’t accuse others of being racist if they cast a white guy as him”.
Brickbacon won’t be surprised that Jobs is being played by a white guy because he already has been played by a white guy, and since that has already happened, and since Brickbacon hasn’t started to accuse others of being racist if they cast a white guy as him, I’m pretty confident in stating that what you wrote doesn’t match up to anything that Brickbacon has said at all.
This discussion has actually turned even more ridiculous if that’s to be believed.
I say and maintain my original point: He was played by a white actor, because he was white in real life. This should come as a surprise to nobody and it has nothing to do with racism, in my opinion. That is, was, and has remained my only point all through this discussion and everything else is a strawman, both things said by me and by both of you.
But it all comes down to, don’t be surprised if someone who was white is played by a white actor.
Beyond that, I have no debate or opinion on anything else to say on it…however, I can keep on repeating the above if anyone is still not understanding the point that I’ve been trying to make all this time.
If so, you’re telling me it’s a surprise to you that a white actor played him?
If your answers are “Yes” and “No” respectively, then we are in agreement and you understand my point now.
If your answers are “No” and “No” or “No” and “Yes” respectively, then I have news for you: Steve Jobs was white.
If your answers are “Yes” and “Yes” respectively, then hey, that’s your right to have that opinion and I will then bow out of this topic since it seems very apparent, by this point, that neither of us is going to convince the other person to see it the way we’re seeing it ourselves.
Here you go, you can have it (regarding our debate) or Banquet Bear can or you both can split it between the two of you, I don’t mind…
…it’s just pointless to keep going over this when all I’m doing is repeating myself now.
It’s really just astonishing how many times you failed to grasp a very basic point. Truly astonishing. Multiple people have slowly tried to explain it to you, yet nothing pops the bubble. Do you realize how rare it is for other people to call you on your distortion and nonsense? Somehow even then, you still claim I said something I didn’t say. It’s just mind boggling.
Here’s the list of black Academy Award winners and nominees. Notice how few of the roles could have been played by somebody of any race. It seems that unless you’re Denzel Washington if you’re a black actor in Hollywood and want to win an Oscar you’ve got to play “black”. You don’t get to be “old guy with Alzheimer’s” or “young wife who has an affair”, or any of the types of roles that seem to get nominations. What I don’t know is if the problem is that black actors really don’t get those types of roles, or if they do and they just get overlooked.
Heh; one of the nominations was for Morgan Freeman’s role as “Red”. (Before he got the win, for, y’know, MILLION DOLLAR BABY.)
You’ve got a point, but let’s not exaggerate: Foxx got the nomination for playing the regular guy who gets roped into helping a killer in COLLATERAL; Gossett got the win for playing the drill instructor in AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN; and I’m guessing they could’ve cast someone other than Whoopi Goodberg as the psychic in GHOST, but it’s hard to picture; plus, like you said, Denzel Washington – and do we figure that Cuba Gooding Jr’s character in JERRY MAGUIRE had to be black, or is that racist?
Well, it’s not less than 10, though, is it? On the one hand, I hadn’t yet mentioned how Queen Latifah got a nomination for her role in CHICAGO – and while I know that part has been played by white actresses before, I’m willing to go out on a limb to figure Samuel L. Jackson’s star-making turn in PULP FICTION could’ve been fielded by a white actor. (At that, Denzel Washington was apparently on the short list for the role John Travolta got, which is just as hard to imagine.)
Otherwise, though – okay, I guess you’re figuring Morgan Freeman’s blackness was key to him earning an Oscar nomination as Nelson Mandela. But then it’s just as fair to say Daniel Day-Lewis’ whiteness was key to him getting cast as Abraham Lincoln? And if Jamie Foxx owes his Oscar win to being black like Ray Charles, then Joaquin Phoenix owes his Oscar nomination to being white like Johnny Cash – losing to Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was white like Truman Capote – and the next year, the Oscar goes to Forest Whitaker, who was black like Idi Amin? What’s the takeaway?
The takeaway is that with a few exceptions black actors get pigeonholed into roles that require a black actor. White actors get the roles where race is irrelevant. If that weren’t the case then the overwhelming majority of nominations for black actors would not be for famous black people, slaves, victims of racial discrimination, or black characters from novels. They’d be playing alcoholic fathers, domineering mothers, sexually confused sons, senile grandfathers, and all those other types of roles the Academy loves nominating and that go almost entirely to white actors.
Well, since the brouhaha got all kicked up his year, consider: Cranston got nominated for playing famous white Dalton Trumbo; DiCaprio, for playing a white Hugh Glass; Fassbender, for playing a white Steve Jobs; Redmayne, last year’s winner for playing a white Stephen Hawking, is playing a white Einar Wegener/Lili Elbe – by your yardstick, they all required a white actor. (The only one I’m not sure about is Damon; was his character’s ethnicity spelled out in the book?)
That goes back to a problem I pointed out earlier, that the Oscars love nominating people for biographies and that due to our Euro-centric history and culture most of those are going to be about white people. And despite what some on the board might try to argue those roles are going to go to white actors. And then on top of that when the role is unquestionably race neutral it’s more likely than not to go to a white actor as well. I recounted and found 17 nominations for black actors where race was irrelevant. I couldn’t even begin to count how many there have been for white actors.
That’s true, and it could explain it. However, you seem to accept that as a reason. Remember what we’re discussing here: racism in Hollywood. If the Oscars are white because blacks don’t get cast, then that’s a further indictment of these Oscars and support the argument that Hollywood has a major race problem. Those kinds of backroom deals aren’t typically front page fodder, but having an Oscars with all white actors is noticeable so that’s why this is getting attention while issues with casting generally isn’t on the public’s mind
But the difference is that at least an over representation would fix the obvious problem with not having many black actors.
No one has stated such a thing in this thread. No one is suprised White actors play White subjects. What is at issue is the justifications for those decisions. Big difference; one that should be noticeable to anyone paying attention.
If people are arguing about the justifications for such casting then implicit in the argument is that such justifications are either wrong or at the very least need be questioned. Else why have the discussion. But I don’t want to get into that. I was simply trying to point out one reason black actors don’t get the type of roles that get Oscar nominations.
Or Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. Or Morgan Freeman as Red.
Actually, since Jack Reacher is not a real person and I never read the books, it made no difference to me if he was Tom Cruise or Michael Clark Duncan.
White engineers get hired for most engineering jobs because most engineers are white.
Is this racism???
This has been a majority white Country for hundreds of years. OF COURSE there is a white “bias” to the culture. There is nothing “wrong” with this!
And note that “supremacist” IS NOT a direct substitute for “majority”, as man of you seem to think.
