I think it is a nonsensical position in the first place so I guess any “logical” conclusion would be equally so.
There is a question here though, is there a certain type of role that must be taken by an equivalent type of actor? if so, which type and why?
There are some roles that must be taken by an equivalent type of actor, certainly. For instance, a role for a person of a particular race, for whom the race of the character is important to who and what he is, must be played by an actor of that race.
This does not mean that all roles are race-locked, because not all characters have a definite race (if, for instance, they originated from a book that didn’t describe the characters in that level of detail, such as Ford Prefect), and in many cases, even if the character does have a particular race, their race is unimportant (such as the mom in A Wrinkle in Time). But some roles are race-locked, because the character’s race is important, like historical figures involved in the Civil Rights struggle.
You can’t do that because then: Actresses only get hired to play “the girlfriend.” You have sexism and age discrimination as clearly now that she is over 30, Scarlett is not being offered any leading roles. “Bankable” actresses in cameos? More sexism and signs of the age discrimination. What do you propose - that 27 year-old Jennifer Lawrence after 1 flop is now reduced to playing a masseuse cameo in a niche picture? Maybe they can get Meryl Streep, too. Jeez, even Meryl can’t get a real role? Maybe Viola Davis can play a maid.
Maybe Melissa McCarthy turned it down?
I was thinking Oliver Platt.
I think that’s fair, it has to be “near enough” to allow that willing suspension of disbelief.
Though of course even that can be fraught with issues. Zoe Saldana, a black woman, was subject to complaints that she wasn’t “black enough” to play Nina Simone.
Being a Native American isn’t about how you look, it’s about tribal affiliation. There are enrolled members of tribal bands who look fully “white” or “black” but the looks aren’t what make them a member of the tribe. Being a member of the tribe is what makes them a member of the tribe. Most Americans don’t really know shit about the Native Americans or indiginous Canadians anyway, and many of them make up fake stories about their great grandmother being “a full-blooded Cherokee.” They only ever say that about Cherokees and Apaches because it’s a famous name that has all kinds of shit named after it like helicopters and jeeps. Nobody ever says “my great grandmother was Lenape.”
I have gay friends who don’t “look gay”, and I also have gay friends who absolutely do “look gay”. There is no possible question that SOME people really do look a certain way.
Still true despite my other point, at least most of the time.
I have a great[sup]4[/sup]-grandmother who was Shawnee. If I were inclined, I could dig out the full family tree to her (and to all of my other ancestors to that depth).
As for why it’s most common for people to claim Cherokee ancestry, it’s mostly because Cherokee ancestry is fairly common. They’re a fairly large tribe, they’ve had a disproportionate amount of pressure to mix with outsiders, and they’re relatively permissive for how much ancestry is necessary to be counted in the tribal rolls.
None of that matters because the whole premise/joke about that character was that she had lightened her skin, died her hair and wore color contacts to erase her background. If anyone had really complained about it, they’d have been stupid. Having a white, blond actress playing the part was the back story joke.
It’s a perfectly reasonable question, to which there will never be a consensus answer. Practically speaking, the answer will be ‘YES, roles are restricted in all cases in which protests take place that have a large-enough effect on the movie-going public to alarm filmmakers.’
My personal feeling is that it’s good to discuss the unconscious ways in which bias plays out–and that one of those ways is in the casting of entertainment projects. Having the discussion was fair, though the malice directed at Johansson strikes me as unhelpful.
Many trans people appear to be happy that Johansson dropped out. If a major motion picture about Gill will now fail to be made, will they be as happy? Perhaps. Would a movie starring Johansson (or some star with equivalent drawing power) have brought new levels of understanding and acceptance of trans people to the masses? Is foregoing that possibility a good thing?
Absent a window into a parallel world in which the movie was made and widely viewed, we can’t know. But in human affairs, the squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease. For good or ill.
Well that and she probably got tired of the harassment.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that people weren’t right to feel that this part should be played by a trans actor, or possibly even a cis male. But some of the backlash against her was really over the top. I mean, it was downright hateful, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she was getting threats. That’s just not cool.
People were acting like this was Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys.
Either trans-people should be regarded as being functionally the same as people who define their identity by the physical characteristics that they were born with, or they shouldn’t. I happen to believe that they should, with the possible exception of certain situations like competitive physical sports. In other regards there is absolutely no reason why the physical characteristics, or sexual identity, of an actress portraying a transgender individual in a movie, should enter into the equation. The kind of people who would object to Johansson’s performance in the movie are only further dividing people, rather than encouraging co-operation…do we really need any more of that at the present time?
It’ll happen. Just wait.
The issue wasnt that SJ didn’t look the part. It was that “She was taking a job away from a Trans actor”
Some of the more idiotic things i heard was “If they want an actor with star power and a familiar name, why don’t they cast Chaz Bono.”
Heimdell isn’t Asgardian and is portrayed very much as ‘other’
Morgan Freeman is Morgan fucking Freeman.
I don’t think the Ghostbusters or Human Torch examples are proving your point.
I’m sure there will always be some berk complaining, but I never heard any carping about Billy Dee or Dench. I heard MUCH MORE about the blonde Bond.
Oh, certainly any malice directed at Johansson herself is misguided. If you’re an actor and you’re offered a part, you take it. Now, maybe Johansson has sufficient clout in Hollywood that she can afford to turn down roles, but she’s one of very few for which that’s true, and I’m sure she still remembers all too well the days before she broke through, when it wasn’t true. No, if there’s any scorn to be had here, it’s for the casting director.
Ethnicity is not, however. Mandela was a particular ethnicity (Xhosa with a large Khoisan component) not found outside South Africa.
The statement made by casting West African-ancestral (with likely a non-zero European component) American and British Blacks is “all Blacks are interchangeable.” Goes right in there with general ignorance of Africa, its true size and diversity.
It’s a similar statement to that made when Chinese actors are cast to play Japanese - “all you yellow people look alike to us”
Those may not be the *intended *statements , but those are definitely the statements *heard *by many PoC.
And all that leaves aside the fact that Mandela is a national icon, which is totally fucking relevant.
Does the fact that her own production company was going to be doing the movie change that for you?
But by this logic, we would never have seen Mandy Patinkin play a Spaniard - and that’s a world I don’t want to live in.
Less humorously, that logic would mean we’d never have a movie about Nicoleño.
General rule: If your push for increased representation would result in less representation, you might want to rethink things a little bit.
