What's better? No minorities cast in a major film? Or token minorities only?

Cafe Society
#1

Personally I think the significant problem is that there aren’t enough non-white screenwriters and film directors getting work on major projects. Once we see non-whites better represented as writers and directors it will follow that there will be better roles for black, asian, latin, inuit actors and actresses.
In the meantime, I almost think the “token minority” character in major Hollywood efforts is worse than an absence of cultural/racial diversity. Often in Hollywood scripts a minor character is written to be black just for the sake of the display of “diversity”. These characters tend to be veryu underdeveloped and often rely on ridiculous stereotypes. I watch these characters and wonder what a horribly degrading experience it must have been for the actor.

So, what’s better? Don’t even try for diversity? Or try and make a mess of it?

#2

Never presume someone’s paycheck is a ‘horribly degrading experience’.

I vote diversity.

Making a mess of it is not a given.

#3

This is too vague a question to be easily answerable. Some casting decisions work and some don’t. Give us some examples of characters in films who seemed to you to be cast purely for the sake of diversity and we’ll be able to give our opinion whether the casting worked in that case.

#4

Howsabout Morgan Freeman? Fine, upstanding, Oscar-caliber actor. Compare his roles as the only black face in, say, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as the Moor and as procurer “Red” in The Shawshank Redemption.

#5

Maybe I’m too much of a nit-picker for historical accuracy, but casting Queen Latifah in Chicago rather stunned me–a black prison matron in 1928? No way.

Of course, Queen Latifah was one of the only bright spots in that ghastly plum-duff of a film, so I guess I shouldn’t complain.

#6

I think the story would/should dictate the use. I mean, a period movie of england in the 19th century shouldn’t have too many minorities (and some do). But I tend to agree with Wendell for more contemporary films.

#7

He was also the ass-kicking President of the US in “Deep Impact” and God Himself in “Bruce Almighty.” I don’t recall many black people in either movie and Freeman friggin rocked in both of them.

#8

I have to go with leaving them out if it hurts the credibility of the movie. Prince of Thieves was a great example. Sure, no matter how you sliced it that movie would have sucked 8 ways from Sunday, but MF’s presence only made it worse because he was so obviously shoe-horned in just for the sake of PC.

One black comic I recall at the time put this into his act: “What the hell’s Morgan Freeman doing in Robin Hood? There weren’t any brothers running around in England. What’s he supposed to be, the arrow caddy?”

Since a lot of people don’t mix cultures when they hang out or at work, it doesn’t strike me as odd or “wrong” to not have a minority in a scene or a movie. It also certainly doesn’t strike me as wrong to have them either.

If the minority is there as a person and is a credible character, I couldn’t care less what his/her race is. If it doesn’t matter to the plot one way or the other, or if the character’s race is important to the plot, then by all means. If it doesn’t matter if the character of “Joe” is black, white, Filipino or whatever, any actor can play it.

If “Joe” needs to be Tibetan, get a Tibetan actor.

If, however, Joe is a Tibetan just because the people making the movie want to show how sensitive they are to the “need” to populate roles with diverse characters, leave Joe’s Tibetan ass on the cutting room floor.

#9

I have to go with leaving them out if it hurts the credibility of the movie. Prince of Thieves was a great example. Sure, no matter how you sliced it that movie would have sucked 8 ways from Sunday, but MF’s presence only made it worse because he was so obviously shoe-horned in just for the sake of PC.

One black comic I recall at the time put this into his act: “What the hell’s Morgan Freeman doing in Robin Hood? There weren’t any brothers running around in England. What’s he supposed to be, the arrow caddy?”

Since a lot of people don’t mix cultures when they hang out or at work, it doesn’t strike me as odd or “wrong” to not have a minority in a scene or a movie. It also certainly doesn’t strike me as wrong to have them either.

If the minority is there as a person and is a credible character, I couldn’t care less what his/her race is. If it doesn’t matter to the plot one way or the other, or if the character’s race is important to the plot, then by all means. If it doesn’t matter if the character of “Joe” is black, white, Filipino or whatever, any actor can play it.

If “Joe” needs to be Tibetan, get a Tibetan actor.

If, however, Joe is a Tibetan just because the people making the movie want to show how sensitive they are to the “need” to populate roles with diverse characters, leave Joe’s Tibetan ass on the cutting room floor.

#10

On the one hand I’d have to agree that characters should be pertinent to the storyline and not “token” On the other hand we of minority status “occur” randomly in all walks of life and so why not throw in a Hispanic here or a Black person there? So there would never really be any way to tell if tokenism is happening huh?

#11

Denzel Washington was in Kenneth Branaugh’s “Much Ado About Nothing.” He played Keanu Reeve’s brother. They picked him not for diversity, and not b/c the character in the story was supposed to be black, but because he’s a good actor. He was good in it, too, but then I’m for anything that gets Denzel into a pair of tights with a sword.

#12

I disagree; if you’re casting an actor in a role just because he’s a minority and not because he’s best for the part, then you’re predisposed to be making a mess of it.

Look at “Smallville,” which is a TV show manufactured to appeal to as wide a cross-section of teens as possible. They took the character of Pete Ross, Superboy’s pal, and cast a black actor in the part. That’s not the problem – the problem is they cast a bad black actor in the part. So it just smacks of “we need to appeal to African-Americans, so we need a black guy on the cast,” not “this guy is perfect for the part, let’s cast him.”

On the other hand, they get points for casting Kristin Kreuk, who’s part Chinese (I think I read that somewhere), as Lana. Not because she’s a phenomenal actress, but because she’s so unbelievably hot. The fact that she’s not the 100% WASP that the comic books usually protrayed Lana as, is irrelevant – the actress was chosen on her own merits. (Again, her preternatural hotness.)

Eve’s example is another good one: you get the impression that Queen Latifah was cast in Chicago not to round out the diversity of the cast, and not because having a black actress in the role even makes that much sense historically. She was cast because she’s a phenomenal singer, actress, and personality, and could do a great job with the material.

So to sum up: if you’re casting a movie or TV show, consider the following, in order: 1) Talent and/or attractiveness of the performer. 2) Appropriateness of the performer to the role. 3-24) Other considerations like how much money they’re asking for or whether they’re related to someone who could fire you. 25) Ethnic background of the performer.

#13

SolGrundy. I find your post amusing because you start off quoting me and saying, “I disagree,” then you pretty much state opinions that concur with my own thoughts on the subject.

However, if I were a casting director, I would likely raise the bar of ‘ethnic background of performer’ somewhere in the top five.

Colorblind casting does not automatically a mess of a movie/Tv show make.

#14

I may be pretty unique in my view of things.

I for one would not mind at all if a black man, or even a woman, were cast in the role of, say, George Washington. I don’t see what a big deal it is, because the actor is obviously not going to be George Washington, no matter their race or sex. So we’re suspending our disbelief anyway. As long as they’re the best actor or actress, why not.

#15

Tonight on Fox: Whoopi Goldberg is the Father of Our Country, costarring Danny DeVito as Martha Washington, Lucy Liu as Ben Franklin, and the Olson Twins as Alexander Hamilton.

#16

Note I did make the qualification that the actors or actresses in question be good. :slight_smile:

#17

Please. It’s one thing to cast minority actors in bad movies just to appeal to a wider audience. Not Another Teen Movie mad fun of that (no, I haven’t seen it). Good movies and good directors/screenwriters cast people according to the roles they are supposed to play. In order to make a movie convincing the appropriate actors have to be chosen, and that choice does include race and gender. Look at Dirty Pretty Things: Chiwetel Ejiofor was cast as Okwe. Okwe is a Nigerian doctor who was illegally immigrated to England. If he was white, would it really be as convincing.

I suppose there are some really minor roles in which race wouldn’t matter, like, say, a janitor. But even then, you wouldn’t cast a woman as a janitor, because that’s not the association most people have. So, if it’s not an important aspect of the movie, you don’t want to call attention to it.

And what if GW was played by a poodle? Then you’d really be suspending your disbelief.

#18

Disagree on “Deep Impact,” but only because everyone in the movie was a freakin’ idiot. That was the only disaster movie I’ve seen where the disaster was the smartest thing in the film.

#19

Hey, there are some good canine actors.

#20

Fallen Angel, there were Moors all over Europe, including England. The MF version of Robin hood was more or less historically accurate.