Wait, stop the presses–turns out it’s not all sunshine and cookies for Exodus! From the same website:
Girlfriend, I wonder how many Academy Awards this movie will earn. Cleopatra won four, and was nominated for five more.
That’s nice. I’m sure we disagree about a lot of moral obligations.
On this one, we probably disagree because you underestimate the damage from the current level of racism in America and because you, as a conservative, are generally more skeptical social obligations to make society better. But feel free to fill in the blanks instead of leaving me to speculate.
I don’t get the sense that he’s out for pure profit. I get the sense that he’s entangled in the Hollywood elite. Ridley Scott is a filmmaker that I very much see as an auteur in many ways. He wants his films to conform to his vision, and having huge budgets makes it a hell of a lot easier to bend things to your vision. His vision just doesn’t deem the race (or, possibly, sex, given the whole “Ripley was originally male” thing) of the characters as horribly important for the most part.
His complacency in all of this is still ultimately selfish, and boycotting may well be a fine response. But I get the sense that his fear is more that he won’t get to make the movie he wants to make – not that it won’t sell well or test well or merchandise well or whatever. Profit isn’t irrelevant to him, but from reading his quotes I’m not clear that’s his real goal when he fears “not getting funded.”
He’s worried the studio won’t fund 5 times Chile’s GDP in CG animators so he can make parting the Red Sea look exactly the way he sees it in his head. Not that he’ll only get $2mil rather than $20mil.
The awesome thing is that you’ve not even seen the movie and you’re gloating about its award potential. You’re doing so, obviously, because you dislike it when racism is brought up, and you’re hoping to rub everyone’s noses in the idea that racism can effectively be fought. Bully for you, I suppose.
Whether it wins awards is immaterial to the discussion, of course, but based on it’s execrable reputation among critics, I’d be surprised if it won any first- or even second-tier awards. Costumes, maybe, but actor/actress/director/picture? no way.
Was the film Cleopatra racist? Yes or no? Was Elizabeth Taylor, a Brit, racist for portraying a Greek?
I think you’re probably right. But that only pushes the boycott’s mechanism back a step and doesn’t change its ultimate effect. If the boycott makes news, if it contributes to poor ticket sales, if it hurts Scott’s reputation among Hollywood decisionmakers–all of these factors will make it harder for him to fund his next picture.
And I think that’s happening. Google “Exodus Movie News,” and you’ll see articles on sites like Forbes and New York Times and HuffPo criticizing the movie’s casting. That can’t be good for the movie. I’ve read critical reviews of the movie that blast it for many things, including the casting. That can’t be good for the movie.
Raising issues like this is not going to lead suddenly to a postracial America, of course. But if it makes directors think twice about casting white actors in the role of nonwhite characters, it might make life a little less racist for nonwhite actors, and it might make entertainment a little more familiar to nonwhite moviegoers, and it might make white moviegoers a touch more aware of nonwhite people in roles other than thugs and bootyshaking dancers.
You’ve asked this question several times. I haven’t seen the movie, nor read commentary by the director, nor considered the question carefully. I see nothing racist about a Brit portraying a Greek. Racism is an aspect of a society, of a culture. Considering it in the absence of the rest of the society, of the culture–considering it out of context–is a terrible idea.
OMG. The movie is being criticized by the NYT and HuffPo. That settles it.
D’Anconia, you either already know this, in which case you’re being an asshole for funsies; or you don’t, and you’re being willfully ignorant. Which is it?
I’m quote D’Anconia, but I’m addressing everyone who agrees with this position.
If a famous multimillionaire filmmaker is under no moral obligation to stop perpetuating the stereotypes, myths, and distortions that feed our unconscious biases, then who is?
How do we expect implicit biases to ever go away if we don’t challenge the media?
Is anyone under a moral obligation to change the status quo? If Ridley Scott can put profit ahead of do-gooder feel-goodism, why not anyone?
Why not always hire the white guy for everthing? Everyone gets along with white guys. White guys have a proven record of competency and accomplishment. They look managerial. Why should anyone feel obligated to take a chance on an unknown brownface in anything, given the proven track record of white guys.
You’re free to fight against stereotypes until your little heart is content. A filmmaker is not obligated to do so.
And that’s why you’re a shithead.
I’m sorry, act like a shithead.
Not obligated by you and other white supremacists (and here I use the term advisedly). But folks who aren’t entirely comfortable with white supremacy, including posters in this thread, NYTimes, HuffPo, Forbes, and millions of filmgoers, might try to place such an obligation on the filmmaker. The filmmaker has every constitutional right to respond as he sees fit; one hopes that he responds better than you.
Nope, still not obligated.
So…
Now we have passed “white so and so” and have now moved onto “white obligation”?
FTS
I’m convinced.
I assume you’ve got the message about Cleopatra now.
Peter Pan started out as a stage play, specifically a pantomime, the UK type of pantomime. In those plays the male romantic lead is traditionally played by a woman and the female mother figure is traditionally played by a man. They’re called the Principal Boy and the Pantomime Dame. The Dame is still always male and the Boy is still occasionally female.
I think you might be a little underinformed.
“A little”? Dude’s the ghost pepper of ignorance.
In the U.S. musical versions, Peter Pan is usually cast as a female, due to some of the higher ranges of the musical score, that male voices generally can’t reach.