Sorry, but I can’t see why a movie exec has some moral obligation to make “ending racism” a part of his plan for movie-making. It might be a noble thing to do, if that’s your calling, but in the end I agree with Scott-- he’s an entertainer, and he’s making entertainment. It’s not like anyone knows what Moses actually looked like (if he even existed) anyway.
He has no more moral obligation not to be racist than anyone else does. If he thinks contributing to racist trends is gonna make him more money, nobody is saying that’s illegal. We’re just saying that we think he’s part of the problem, and that if he’s not gonna be obligated by morality like a decent person, maybe hitting his wallet or his reputation will impose a stronger obligation on him.
Honestly, what surprises me about the whole thing isn’t his actions. What surprises me is how shamelessly he admits to it. I would have thought he’d be self-aware enough to prevaricate or halfway apologize.
Well, we have a reasonable approximation. This movie one is unlikely.
I disagree that casting Bale as Moses counts as “contributing to racist trends”.
Well, it certainly makes the movie a lot less interesting to me. I should be exactly the audience for such historical epics, but they have to have some interest in verisimilitude.
I liked Christian Bale as a 17th-century English explorer (in a movie I liked very much), and a 19th-century American Civil War veteran (in a movie I ultimately disliked). I think he’s a fine actor, but I don’t think he and Scott can make me see him as Moses.
So, looks like an “entertainer” fail to me. Pisses me off a bit, really, because just as with Troy, now that a big-name, big-budget feature (which sucked) has been done on the subject, it’s unlikely we’ll get a better one for many years.
There isn’t a problem to be fixed.
The movie isn’t exactly busting down box office doors, so it fails on that basis too.
Since Exodus isn’t blazing new trails with its story, basing casting decisions on the hackneyed “white is right” formula was stupid if only because a racially mixed cast could have been a huge selling point. That one thing alone would have made it stand out from others in the genre, and that opportunity was wasted.
Man, this thread makes my head hurt (why did I read the whole thing?).
If you look hard enough, you can find racism in anything.
The trailer looks over-the-top ridiculous to me, so I won’t be seeing it. I can’t imagine that having a different cast would have made much of a difference. Big names sell movies, and I’m not aware of any bad movies that were blockbusters because of no-name casts.
Perhaps the poor casting was only one symptom of the general lack of inspiration in this case.
When blond-haired, blue-eyes Charleton Heston was cast in the same role, wasn’t that “contributing to racist trends”? I certainly think it was.
The same excuse Ridley gave could have been given fifty years ago. But at least fifty years ago, there really weren’t a whole lot of “blockbuster” non-white actors to choose from. That is not true today.
Every aspect of art is political. Every decision Ridley made with this film was political and thus fair game for critique. A movie isn’t just a movie. No movie exists in a vacuum.
I’m not going to second guess a director or producer for why they chose a given actor, especially if said actor is a damn good actor; certainly one of the best. We’re talking about someone who got an Oscar when he was still a kid (Christian Bale).
Emphasis added. I could not disagree strongly enough. Art is art. If you want to MAKE it political, that’s you prerogative, I suppose. But don’t pin that on me, if I’m making art.
True. If you’re making an apolitical work of art, in an apolitical world–you know, one without racism–then there’s no reason to inject politics into it.
But if you’re in a society with a centuries-long history of really ugly racism, and when you make decisions that are of a piece with the decisions that have propped up one corner of that racism, then it’s not just art: your decisions are actions with consequences.
Danconia, you’re being totally stupid. Your argument has been:
- They had to use white actors, because the movie was mysteriously made in all-white Spain, and they couldn’t control that!
- They couldn’t possibly pay for airfare to bring nonwhite actors to nonwhite Spain!
- Oh, they could have controlled the movie’s location, AND they could have hired some of the hundreds of thousands of Moroccans to act the part of Egyptians? Well, THERE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM!
I mean, get your shit together.
Not buying that. It’s not my responsibility to fix the problems of society. It might be a noble thing to do, but it’s not something we can require of people. No one is being hurt by this movie.
This goes to the point I made upthread about how “Oscar award winning” is more of an industry slogan (and mentality) than an objective assessment of talent. As long as leading roles always go to white guys, then white guys are always going to get leading roles. And they will continue to justify this entitlement by pointing to all the Academy awards they reap. The madness is self-perpetuating.
Bullshit. Art has always been much more than entertainment. If you make something for people to consume, you invite all kinds of critique. Your intent is one thing, but art isn’t just about what you intend. It’s also about the culture and values and unconscious thought processes that infuse your intention. All of that is up for discussion when you say, “Lookit what I did!”
“Require” in what sense? If someone is continuing a racist structure, I am not going to call for their arrest necessarily, but I’ll happily withhold my dollars from them. (In this case, of course, I’ve got two children under the age of six, and the idea of my withholding my moviegoing dollars is an empty threat).
Someone making a blockbuster movie is a major shaper of mass culture. I would like those people to take some of the great responsibility that comes with their great power.
Well, if we’re talking about “art”, I would not consider anyone to be an actual artist if they worried about whether someone was going to pay money for their art or not and then let that shape the content of their art.
Gee, I better put a pony in this painting because people really like ponies, and it’ll up the value even though the pony has nothing to do with the actual piece of art.
But, you certainly get to spend your money as you wish. I just think it’s foolish to try and work politics into every aspect of entertainment. What I was objecting to, remember, was the statement that “every aspect of art is political”. Art certainly can be political, but it need not necessarily be so.
Then why are you even talking about art, if you don’t think it applies to this case?
Then no one in Hollywood makes real art then. Casting decisions have as much to do with marketability as they do talent, and minorities are routinely overlooked for big parts because they don’t look like the people Hollywood caters to.
No, they are still an artist. They are just an artist who wants to eat and pay rent.
The only artists who aren’t trying to appeal to a certain audience are the kind of artists who just create for themselves. Which would be a very small number of people.
The subject of the art is the “actual piece”, right? An artist does not just randomly select a subject. The subject is supposed to mean something. The artist’s cultural milieu and background, their values, and their preferences all go into who or what gets to be the subject. So this decision is inherently political.
Do you think “The Birth of a Nation” was political?
If the filmmaker had told us it was intended to be nothing more than entertainment, what would you think?