That you believe that an actor’s skin color is an essential element of plot and storyline is something you’re bringing to the discussion. It’s not inherent in consideration of artistic merit.
This is just special pleading. You’re creating exceptions for instances that you don’t want to object to.
What is a “9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery”? There’s no hard definition of it. None of us have lived in even one such setting, not to mention every possible one. Even historical scholarship can’t give us a 100 percent accurate picture of what such a setting would have been like in real life (again, not to mention every actual real life setting).
So, either because of limitations of actual knowledge, or limitations of individual knowledge, every single 9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery ever made has been necessarily or intentionally or neglectfully historically inaccurate. That has never been a critical factor in judging the artistic merit of a particular Norse-themed story.
And, yet, this one thing–the skin color of an actor–is suddenly such a critical factor.
[quote=“armedmonkey, post:120, topic:835460”]
I’ll drink to that.
So maybe a future Hulk with a black actor won’t look so gorilla-like. There’s nothing about this that is mandatory.
Maybe not like a gorilla specifically, but Hulk being a brutish, uncivilized rage monster is inherent to the character, and portraying a black man as turning into any sort of brutish, uncivilized rage monster is going to be problematic.
I’d argue no. The Hulk kinda has to be a big gorilla rage monster. I know in the comics they’ve had him a bit cerebral at times but the best version is always going to be “HULK SMASH!” Imagining characters as different is fun, but if you go too far afield it’s not the same character anymore.
I haven’t read all the previous posts, so sorry if this has been covered but I think it’s worth appreciating that situations like this are not symmetrical.
For example, considered those with a disability.
For them, it might be frustrating to see a disabled character being played by an able-bodied actor – because such roles are few and far between, and are often played in a stereotypical way by actors that may have misconceptions of what being disabled is like (and the directing / script may be at fault…but anyway, a genuinely disabled actor might be more inclined to push back against these).
Meanwhile a disabled actor playing an able-bodied role (let’s say a character that is seated throughout, being played by an actor that cannot walk)…yeah…why not? Why would anyone be annoyed by that? It’s not the same.
Obviously race is not a disability, it was just a clear example to illustrate my point.
The issues regarding the lack of roles, and stereotyping are similar however.
What about the other side of this issue where a black character in a book is played by a black actor in the movie, and fans of the book get all upset because that (very sympathetic) character was played by an n-word?
carrps, in one of Heinlein’s books (Tunnel in the Sky), he decided that the main character was black (though it wasn’t actually relevant to the story at all), and slipped in subtle but unambiguous clues to his race, that could be missed on a casual read but not once they were pointed out. His editor at the time was a racist, and wouldn’t have agreed to publish a book about a black character, and he wanted to rub his nose in getting away with it.
And along the lines of a black Robert E. Lee, Neil Gaiman tells of a producer once being interested in making a screen adaptation of Anansi Boys, but wanting to make the main character white. The main character who is literally the son of an African trickster god.
The last time I remember that happening was with the character Rue from The Hunger Games. (In the book I thought it was clear she wasn’t white but perhaps not as dark skinned as the actress in the movie.) I remember reading about the uproar over the actor’s skin color online but I can’t recall ever hearing someone complain about it in real life. Whenever I see an article about people being outraged about something online I really wonder how many people are really upset. I don’t believe many people were at all upset about the skin color of the actress who played Rue.
This is something the media is not only loath to talk about, it’s practically impossible to get anyone to admit it as a concept. It’s a great conceptual gap for the obvious reason that admitting it would bring down the whole notion of “outrage tourism” as a journalistic staple. In short, the Internet is huge. You can therefore find literally any opinion on it if you try hard enough, especially if you stop trying and just look for groups of trolls trying to stir shit up for their own amusement. (It would be beneath you to suggest the journalists sometimes were the trolls.) Therefore, a quick way to get an audience is to find trolls saying “MOVIE BAD BECAUSE ACTOR BLACK” and build a story around no, movie good because cast diverse and you’re on the side of the angels, assuming angels are in the habit of elevating demons to the heavens so their bile can flow over a larger area.
It takes 131 posts for someone to mention The Shawshank Redemption. If someone has only seen the movie starring Morgan Freeman, inform them in that the original Stephen King novella *Rita Haywood and the Shawshank Redemption[i/] Red was a middle aged white Irish guy, but Freeman wanted the role so badly he was willing to audition for it. And then watch the person’s jaw drop.
I found the clues to be pretty damned vague, myself, and am not entirely convinced that this is a genuine case of hidden race. It’s not like Starship Troopers, where there’s no doubt of it. This seems to me more like Rowling claiming, after the fact, that Dumbledore is gay.
It’s been so long since I first saw the film, not to mention read the story, I don’t recall what I thought about that. I don’t remember if I was a big MF fan by that time or even what I pictured the character Red to look like (though obviously it would have been however SK painted him; white Irish looking dude with red hair.)
It’s a good illustration of a character deviating from the original characterization. Still, I hope no ones going to try and say a woman could play that part (without changing the story to be setting in a women’s prison)
All this reminds me of an episode of the Imaginary Worlds podcast, in which non-white cosplayers talked about how often white people around them demand to know whether they’re portraying “alternative” versions of their favorite heroes.
You say this like it’s the only way people would define his “base”.
I think a majority of consumers would instead described him as “A spy and an assassin who works for a major power, who uses cool gadgets, who is a playboy, and is terrible at concealing his identity.”
I’m not saying it’s morally or technically wrong to do a female Bond, but doing so would be a colossal failure.
At least one of the points I’m making is that there is more than one way to define a character, and there aren’t a lot of elements that are absolutely indispensable.
(1) The artistic validity of a statement isn’t dependent on “a majority of consumers.” Consumers often don’t know what they like until it’s shown to them.
(2) Maybe. Maybe not. A woman can easily be cast as a playboy-type.
(3) But I’m not even sure that that is an accurate statement. A playboy is someone who is sufficiently wealthy to work little and live a life of ease and frivolity, which includes sexual promiscuity. Remember, Batman pretends to be a playboy in his Bruce Wayne identity. That doesn’t make Batman qua Batman a playboy.
Bond is not a man of leisure who includes sexual escapades in his That’s not really what Bond does. Bond is a very busy spy whose undercover assignments often (but not always) include glamorous settings and who happens also to be sexually promiscuous. All these things are translatable to a female character.
(4) The Daniel Craig version of Bond, arguably one of the most successful depictions of Bond, broke through a lot of the boxes that perhaps “a majority of consumers” might previously have put the character in. You still hear some people complain about how Craig’s Bond isn’t really Bond, because Bond wouldn’t suffer from PTSD or feel remorse or whatever.
You might not like the idea, but that’s not equivalent to the idea being doomed to artistic failure from the outset.
Art is meant to break what previously were thought of as unbreakable rules.
Yes, sure, it might not be “the same.” Art isn’t obligated to be “the same.” That’s the whole point. Keeping things the same is what pushes us into these cultural corners.
Arguing for sameness amounts to a circular argument.
