Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Sammich is right. Films are a visual medium. If the actor's appearance doesn't match their role, it strains suspension of disbelief and dispels immersion. That makes for less effective storytelling.
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Human torture is a powerful thing. Being forced to go through that state of liminality at the behest of one that holds complete sway over your very existence as a human being (an existence, by the way, that they don't acknowledge as fully human in the first place) is something that strikes me very profoundly.
I'm not trying to be a dishonest douche just for the sake of winning an Internet argument.
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Human torture is a powerful thing. Being forced to go through that state of liminality at the behest of one that holds complete sway over your very existence as a human being (an existence, by the way, that they don't acknowledge as fully human in the first place) is something that strikes me very profoundly.
I'm not trying to be a dishonest douche just for the sake of winning an Internet argument.
Oh sure the torture is nasty but thats not the only point. Its meant to show just what blacks went through, as the more or less unique victims of slavery in America. Having the Daniel Craig of the 70s up there would have completely removed that.
You can't remove the visual importance of film by handing waving it away and just giving the audience a disclaimer saying "Ok guys this swede is actually a black teenager from Africa who was just sold into slavery".
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Human torture is a powerful thing. Being forced to go through that state of liminality at the behest of one that holds complete sway over your very existence as a human being (an existence, by the way, that they don't acknowledge as fully human in the first place) is something that strikes me very profoundly.
I'm not trying to be a dishonest douche just for the sake of winning an Internet argument.
But wouldn't the reason for that torture an important aspect of it? The cause of the beating related to the recipients position based purely on skin color makes it different than if it was caused by his being a serial rapist.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
And sometimes it doesn't matter.
Senju and possibly some others saying it doesn't matter at all.
It does sometimes and doesn't other times.
Let's talk about 21. The book is written by an Asian and is full of Asians.
The movie is full of non-Asians.
That casting decision may have been rude but there was nothing race-relevant I saw in the movie. Did the book have anything where their races actually factored in? I doubt it.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
wazilla on
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
And sometimes it doesn't matter.
Senju and possibly some others saying it doesn't matter at all.
It does sometimes and doesn't other times.
Let's talk about 21. The book is written by an Asian and is full of Asians.
The movie is full of non-Asians.
That casting decision may have been rude but there was nothing race-relevant I saw in the movie. Did the book have anything where their races actually factored in? I doubt it.
But wouldn't the reason for that torture an important aspect of it? The cause of the beating related to the recipients position based purely on skin color makes it different than if it was caused by his being a serial rapist.
The thing I wrote about liminality addresses this. The reason for the torture is to strip him of his cultural identity and force him to adopt another.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Sammich is right. Films are a visual medium. If the actor's appearance doesn't match their role, it strains suspension of disbelief and dispels immersion. That makes for less effective storytelling.
Right but that only matters if race is relevant to the character or story. Just because a character is black or white or gay or straight or even male or female in the source material doesn't mean any of those characteristics are necessarily relevant.
They certainly might be, but that is a case-by-case basis.
But wouldn't the reason for that torture an important aspect of it? The cause of the beating related to the recipients position based purely on skin color makes it different than if it was caused by his being a serial rapist.
The thing I wrote about liminality addresses this. The reason for the torture is to strip him of his cultural identity and force him to adopt another.
Exactly, and this wouldn't have worked if it was just one white dude whipping another.
Drez, yeah my argument is only relevant when race is actually relevant. 21 isn't such a case.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
I'm sure you could accept a Swedish actor as a black slave. It would still be poor storytelling.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Really because if you had a swede walking off a ship with a bunch of black people all chained together then have him tied to a post and whipped by his white owner all the while proclaiming his name to be Kunta Kinte I think you're going to get as much laughter as deep emotional output.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Slight sidenote: there were many issues with the adaptation they made of 'Wizard of Earthsea', but changing the race of Ged was almost certainly one of the biggest ones. But then, being a work of fantasy, I suppose some would argue it didn't matter as much as casting a white person to play an Asian role, or anything similar from that awful period in history.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
But wouldn't the reason for that torture an important aspect of it? The cause of the beating related to the recipients position based purely on skin color makes it different than if it was caused by his being a serial rapist.
The thing I wrote about liminality addresses this. The reason for the torture is to strip him of his cultural identity and force him to adopt another.
I'm not sure liminality is the right word here. He isn't going through a rite of passage, he's being beaten into general obedience. Unless the word has broader usage than I am aware of.
edit: well, kind of specific obedience, but none-the-less I think liminality applies to a more specific situation.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
And sometimes it doesn't matter.
Senju and possibly some others saying it doesn't matter at all.
It does sometimes and doesn't other times.
Let's talk about 21. The book is written by an Asian and is full of Asians.
The movie is full of non-Asians.
That casting decision may have been rude but there was nothing race-relevant I saw in the movie. Did the book have anything where their races actually factored in? I doubt it.
Wasn't that about real people though?
Yes, and that's why I think it is the perfect example. I think it may have been rude to whitewash the cast but I don't think the movie actually suffers for it in any meaningful way.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a movie about some really smart kids that get in over their heads. So, all other issues with whitewashing the cast aside, how does their race pertain to the story at all? It wasn't really a part of the "role" despite being based on real people.
Slight sidenote: there were many issues with the adaptation they made of 'Wizard of Earthsea', but changing the race of Ged was almost certainly one of the biggest ones. But then, being a work of fantasy, I suppose some would argue it didn't matter as much as casting a white person to play an Asian role, or anything similar from that awful period in history.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
I read the book and I can't even remember what race he was, so I can't imagine it matters to the character. There's still the issue of marginalisation of non-white actors and the "all white, all the time" attitude of film-makers, though.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Really because if you had a swede walking off a ship with a bunch of black people all chained together then have him tied to a post and whipped by his white owner all the while proclaiming his name to be Kunta Kinte I think you're going to get as much laughter as deep emotional output.
Ok, you wanted me to tell you how you would keep the race based component. Nobody is going to doubt the white dude is African if he came on a boat full of Africans from Africa and proclaims to have an African name.
I don't know what your response has to do with anything.
I'll just concede the point and say I agree with Aroused Bull. Poor storytelling and whatnot. Sure.
The original example was Othello, a story where the main characters race is vitally important to the story.
Sure, and I pretty much agree with you. I just don't think that argument has much to do with "Black Heimdall, yea or nay?" because anyone saying (apparent) race NEVER matters is being absolutist and silly. (Though Roots is a much better example supporting your point.
FroThulhu - entertainingly, my actual babies are Scandinavian on their dad's side. We joke about how their family album has photos of great-great-great-great-great grandpa Ragnar sacking Lindisfarne. But nobody on that side of the family blathers about "pure blood" even though most of them are blonde and blue-eyed and can trace their ancestry back to the same region to the 13th century or so. It's only the chinless mixed yahoos who believe in that crap.l
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Really because if you had a swede walking off a ship with a bunch of black people all chained together then have him tied to a post and whipped by his white owner all the while proclaiming his name to be Kunta Kinte I think you're going to get as much laughter as deep emotional output.
Ok, you wanted me to tell you how you would keep the race based component. Nobody is going to doubt the white dude is African if he came on a boat full of Africans from Africa and proclaims to have an African name.
I don't know what your response has to do with anything.
I'll just concede the point and say I agree with Aroused Bull. Poor storytelling and whatnot. Sure.
Sure they'll probably know he's supposed to be an African, that doesn't mean it will actually work for the movie. Cognitive Dissonance isn't that strong and you can only push the suspension of disbelief so far.
Slight sidenote: there were many issues with the adaptation they made of 'Wizard of Earthsea', but changing the race of Ged was almost certainly one of the biggest ones. But then, being a work of fantasy, I suppose some would argue it didn't matter as much as casting a white person to play an Asian role, or anything similar from that awful period in history.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
I read the book and I can't even remember what race he was, so I can't imagine it matters to the character. There's still the issue of marginalisation of non-white actors and the "all white, all the time" attitude of film-makers, though.
It wasn't so much "race" as the fact that in the world of Earthsea, the only people not varying shades of brown were the scary heathen Kargad raiders. They aren't quite seen as white ghosts but it's not far off (and of course they're the ones worshipping the evil Eaten Ones in the second book). Ged is brown and Vetch is black. It's not so much violence to the individual characters are violence to the world of the book. It's like saying you could put Hogwarts in downtown Los Angeles and it wouldn't change Dumbledore, but it would sure screw with the world setting.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Slight sidenote: there were many issues with the adaptation they made of 'Wizard of Earthsea', but changing the race of Ged was almost certainly one of the biggest ones. But then, being a work of fantasy, I suppose some would argue it didn't matter as much as casting a white person to play an Asian role, or anything similar from that awful period in history.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
I read the book and I can't even remember what race he was, so I can't imagine it matters to the character. There's still the issue of marginalisation of non-white actors and the "all white, all the time" attitude of film-makers, though.
Well, I suppose it depends on the person you ask with regards to the importance of Ged's race. I knew he wasn't white, but then again it was my favourite book series as a kid, so when I saw Iceman was playing him in the adpatation, I immediately crossed it off my "to see" list. His race is important in the sense that he isn't played to some stereotyped view of what race means to a person and their personality.
Of course, that may have been the problem which led to him being played by a white guy in the first place, which falls under the same branching title as the prevailing problem in the industry of "all white all the time".
Slight sidenote: there were many issues with the adaptation they made of 'Wizard of Earthsea', but changing the race of Ged was almost certainly one of the biggest ones. But then, being a work of fantasy, I suppose some would argue it didn't matter as much as casting a white person to play an Asian role, or anything similar from that awful period in history.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
I read the book and I can't even remember what race he was, so I can't imagine it matters to the character. There's still the issue of marginalisation of non-white actors and the "all white, all the time" attitude of film-makers, though.
It wasn't so much "race" as the fact that in the world of Earthsea, the only people not varying shades of brown were the scary heathen Kargad raiders. They aren't quite seen as white ghosts but it's not far off (and of course they're the ones worshipping the evil Eaten Ones in the second book). Ged is brown and Vetch is black. It's not so much violence to the individual characters are violence to the world of the book. It's like saying you could put Hogwarts in downtown Los Angeles and it wouldn't change Dumbledore, but it would sure screw with the world setting.
In the case of a fantasy world, I don't necessarily agree. It's a matter of culture, not colour. If the various fantasy cultures remain intact the actual shades of their skins don't matter, although since it's a point of note in the book the difference in colour between the Kargad and the other races would need to be preserved. It would still work fine if everyone was various pale colours and the Kargad were dark brown, though that would have some pretty unfortunate implications.
Is it possible that there may be no blanket right or wrong answer to the topic of x race actor playing y race character and thet perhaps the situation itself should be looked at rather than comparing it to Othello, the Black Panther, etc. Does saying things should work one way for one specific situation mean they must be used in all situations? Maybe it's ok in Thor but wouldn't be ok in Black Panther. Maybe a black Nick Fury is ok (or 10x more awesome) but a white Aang is less so.
And for the record, I think a black Spiderman would work just as well as a white Spiderman, since there's really no part of Spidey's history or character that requires him to be white.
shosar on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
We really got upwards of eight pages of discussion out of this in under 5 hours? I'll just humor the thought and see what you all got here. There better be some memorable lines in all this, that's all I'm saying.
My gut reaction was, what in the world was "Tycho" thinking when he pinned his update for today. He's an intelligent man I had to remind myself, but how could he come to this conclusion? Is it truly racist to want a mythological persona to be portrayed in the traditional manner that such a being has been for centuries? I dare say it is not a racist thing to expect. Now granted if someone could prove to me that their were any non-white vikings, then okay, I'll retract my statements up to this point.
*Hypothetically waits*
Yeah... See it wouldn't matter how long I waited, because there were never ANY non-white vikings. So how in the world could they have imagined a mythological persona that was anything except white? o_O Just boggles my mind. And yet, I'm going to be labeled incorrectly as a racist for wanting to take a stand and say, the casting for this role is ridiculous. If anything the black community should be up in arms about this, because it is a token character (even within Norse mythology) so this is the most token of token black roles I've even heard of.
==============================
*Marvel meeting about upcoming Thor movie*
Marvel exec: Don't you think this is pushing a negative image only having white people playing the parts of Norse gods?
Marvel lackey: No worries, sir. We've got this covered! We'll have a black man play the role of one the Norse gods.
Marvel exec: How's that going to fly?
Marvel lackey: Well, you know how Hollywood loves its token black men in movies? Well we'll have a black man play the part of Heimdall.
Marvel exec: Who?
Marvel lackey: Exactly! Heimdall is a token Norse god in Norse mythology. People probably would even notice.
Marvel exec: I like it!
==============================
Now the character of Peter Parker, let's imagine that role as a black person. I actually could accept that quite a bit easier as there is not the centuries of history to support that the character should look a certain way. I've enjoyed the parallel world comics where Parker is some Asian ninja in training. It was refreshing. Yet centuries of history doesn't mean something is right per say. Take images of Jesus for example. Usually depicted as a white male, but let's face it, Jesus when he lived on the Earth lived in an Arab land and could have had Arab features so in such a case I would error on the side of the what the culture was like if I was to ever depict what Jesus looked like.
The same principles can be applied to Heimdall and the logic flows out like I said before. Vikings were unlikely to imagine a Norse god as black because they themselves were all white and never seen a black man. It is logical. Now yes, there is the fact it is a movie and the characters are supposed to have been around long enough now to have seen a black person so in theory Heimdall could have one day said to himself that he wanted to get his black on, and from that day forth look like a black man, but really?
Let's look at Shaka Zulu for a moment. Why not have a non-black mexican/spainish person play that role if you were to recast that famous mini-series? Because the cultural differences would make it look stupid! Come on! Use logic here. Yes the logic lead a person into what could be viewed as racist ideals, but unfortunately that is the logic of this issue.
Sigh...
Then again, this is Marvel studios and I haven't been a fan of Marvel in general for years now mainly for stupid stuff like this. And let's be honest, the last good Marvel movies were Iron Man 1 and the second Hulk film, so I'm not really putting a lot of faith in on this movie being good anyhow.
**edit* I saw the PATV, and I get where the guys are coming from about not wanting to sound racist, but I think we need to realize there are times where you have to take a stand for logic even when it leads you to places that would cast you in an ill light by the masses.
Also, in case you were wondering, it's when you decide to "take a stand" over "the most token of token black roles," that people start to ask themselves "is this guy a racist?"
Also, in case you were wondering, it's when you decide to "take a stand" over "the most token of token black roles," that people start to ask themselves "is this guy a racist?"
You can't tell me that Marvel wasn't throwing Hollywood a bone there to say, "See it isn't a movie about white power, really." The casting for the role is just about as bad as having a movie about affluent white rich people and the only person with even the hint of darker skin from birth is a black man parking the cars at a restaurant.
Yes, of course torture is not the only point. That's why my post didn't stop at "torture is bad"
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Really because if you had a swede walking off a ship with a bunch of black people all chained together then have him tied to a post and whipped by his white owner all the while proclaiming his name to be Kunta Kinte I think you're going to get as much laughter as deep emotional output.
For some reason, this reminds me of the Dave Chapelle skit about the blind black guy who is a member of the KKK.
The idea that someone could watch Roots where the main character was played by Sean Connery and not find the casting choice incredibly distracting is hard to swallow.
There's a minority of roles in film or theatre where the character's race or sex is absolutely crucial to the story (Roots, American History X). And there are others where the context of the setting also makes race or sex important (Robin Hood, the Handmaid's Tale).
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Also, in case you were wondering, it's when you decide to "take a stand" over "the most token of token black roles," that people start to ask themselves "is this guy a racist?"
You can't tell me that Marvel wasn't throwing Hollywood a bone there to say, "See it isn't a movie about white power, really."
So now is that what you are wanting to take a stand against?
My gut reaction was, what in the world was "Tycho" thinking when he pinned his update for today. He's an intelligent man I had to remind myself, but how could he come to this conclusion? Is it truly racist to want a mythological persona to be portrayed in the traditional manner that such a being has been for centuries? I dare say it is not a racist thing to expect. Now granted if someone could prove to me that their were any non-white vikings, then okay, I'll retract my statements up to this point.
They're not Vikings. They're aliens from another dimension. This can't be stressed enough. The "There's no black people in scandavia" is a bunk argument. There's no aliens either. Marvel Asgards are NOT equivilant to Norse mythology. They share a lot of elements, but Marvel takes as many liberties with the source material as they want to.
I mean, shit, Thor is supposed to have red hair and a beard, but traditionally he's run around the Marvel universe clean shaven with Fabio's hair. Also, I don't recall there being a giant, remote controlled robot suit OF THE GODS in norse mythology. I could be wrong about that though.
Posts
If I understood that he was portraying an African slave and the performance up to that point had done nothing to detract from my experience then I see no reason why it couldn't have been.
I'm having a hard time believing you to be honest. The scene where he's brutally whipped is just as strong and meaningful if its a blond blue eyed swede up there? Really?
Sammich is right. Films are a visual medium. If the actor's appearance doesn't match their role, it strains suspension of disbelief and dispels immersion. That makes for less effective storytelling.
Human torture is a powerful thing. Being forced to go through that state of liminality at the behest of one that holds complete sway over your very existence as a human being (an existence, by the way, that they don't acknowledge as fully human in the first place) is something that strikes me very profoundly.
I'm not trying to be a dishonest douche just for the sake of winning an Internet argument.
Oh sure the torture is nasty but thats not the only point. Its meant to show just what blacks went through, as the more or less unique victims of slavery in America. Having the Daniel Craig of the 70s up there would have completely removed that.
You can't remove the visual importance of film by handing waving it away and just giving the audience a disclaimer saying "Ok guys this swede is actually a black teenager from Africa who was just sold into slavery".
But wouldn't the reason for that torture an important aspect of it? The cause of the beating related to the recipients position based purely on skin color makes it different than if it was caused by his being a serial rapist.
--LeVar Burton
It does sometimes and doesn't other times.
Let's talk about 21. The book is written by an Asian and is full of Asians.
The movie is full of non-Asians.
That casting decision may have been rude but there was nothing race-relevant I saw in the movie. Did the book have anything where their races actually factored in? I doubt it.
But this is an argument not worth having, since I can't persuade you into believing that I would perceive something in a manner in which I believe I would perceive it.
Wasn't that about real people though?
The thing I wrote about liminality addresses this. The reason for the torture is to strip him of his cultural identity and force him to adopt another.
You didn't really address how you can reasonably expect to keep the race based component of the scene without making the actors actually look like the races involved though.
Right but that only matters if race is relevant to the character or story. Just because a character is black or white or gay or straight or even male or female in the source material doesn't mean any of those characteristics are necessarily relevant.
They certainly might be, but that is a case-by-case basis.
Exactly, and this wouldn't have worked if it was just one white dude whipping another.
Drez, yeah my argument is only relevant when race is actually relevant. 21 isn't such a case.
I'm sure you could accept a Swedish actor as a black slave. It would still be poor storytelling.
I'm pretty sure the part where he insists that his name is kunta kinte would provide a subtle hint that he was African.
Really because if you had a swede walking off a ship with a bunch of black people all chained together then have him tied to a post and whipped by his white owner all the while proclaiming his name to be Kunta Kinte I think you're going to get as much laughter as deep emotional output.
I guess it just struck me as being similar to the brown M&Ms thing - if they've gotten that detail wrong, that doesn't bode well for the other things they've done.
I'm not sure liminality is the right word here. He isn't going through a rite of passage, he's being beaten into general obedience. Unless the word has broader usage than I am aware of.
edit: well, kind of specific obedience, but none-the-less I think liminality applies to a more specific situation.
--LeVar Burton
Yes, and that's why I think it is the perfect example. I think it may have been rude to whitewash the cast but I don't think the movie actually suffers for it in any meaningful way.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a movie about some really smart kids that get in over their heads. So, all other issues with whitewashing the cast aside, how does their race pertain to the story at all? It wasn't really a part of the "role" despite being based on real people.
I read the book and I can't even remember what race he was, so I can't imagine it matters to the character. There's still the issue of marginalisation of non-white actors and the "all white, all the time" attitude of film-makers, though.
Ok, you wanted me to tell you how you would keep the race based component. Nobody is going to doubt the white dude is African if he came on a boat full of Africans from Africa and proclaims to have an African name.
I don't know what your response has to do with anything.
I'll just concede the point and say I agree with Aroused Bull. Poor storytelling and whatnot. Sure.
Sure, and I pretty much agree with you. I just don't think that argument has much to do with "Black Heimdall, yea or nay?" because anyone saying (apparent) race NEVER matters is being absolutist and silly. (Though Roots is a much better example supporting your point.
FroThulhu - entertainingly, my actual babies are Scandinavian on their dad's side. We joke about how their family album has photos of great-great-great-great-great grandpa Ragnar sacking Lindisfarne. But nobody on that side of the family blathers about "pure blood" even though most of them are blonde and blue-eyed and can trace their ancestry back to the same region to the 13th century or so. It's only the chinless mixed yahoos who believe in that crap.l
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sure they'll probably know he's supposed to be an African, that doesn't mean it will actually work for the movie. Cognitive Dissonance isn't that strong and you can only push the suspension of disbelief so far.
It wasn't so much "race" as the fact that in the world of Earthsea, the only people not varying shades of brown were the scary heathen Kargad raiders. They aren't quite seen as white ghosts but it's not far off (and of course they're the ones worshipping the evil Eaten Ones in the second book). Ged is brown and Vetch is black. It's not so much violence to the individual characters are violence to the world of the book. It's like saying you could put Hogwarts in downtown Los Angeles and it wouldn't change Dumbledore, but it would sure screw with the world setting.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, I suppose it depends on the person you ask with regards to the importance of Ged's race. I knew he wasn't white, but then again it was my favourite book series as a kid, so when I saw Iceman was playing him in the adpatation, I immediately crossed it off my "to see" list. His race is important in the sense that he isn't played to some stereotyped view of what race means to a person and their personality.
Of course, that may have been the problem which led to him being played by a white guy in the first place, which falls under the same branching title as the prevailing problem in the industry of "all white all the time".
In the case of a fantasy world, I don't necessarily agree. It's a matter of culture, not colour. If the various fantasy cultures remain intact the actual shades of their skins don't matter, although since it's a point of note in the book the difference in colour between the Kargad and the other races would need to be preserved. It would still work fine if everyone was various pale colours and the Kargad were dark brown, though that would have some pretty unfortunate implications.
And for the record, I think a black Spiderman would work just as well as a white Spiderman, since there's really no part of Spidey's history or character that requires him to be white.
*Hypothetically waits*
Yeah... See it wouldn't matter how long I waited, because there were never ANY non-white vikings. So how in the world could they have imagined a mythological persona that was anything except white? o_O Just boggles my mind. And yet, I'm going to be labeled incorrectly as a racist for wanting to take a stand and say, the casting for this role is ridiculous. If anything the black community should be up in arms about this, because it is a token character (even within Norse mythology) so this is the most token of token black roles I've even heard of.
==============================
*Marvel meeting about upcoming Thor movie*
Marvel exec: Don't you think this is pushing a negative image only having white people playing the parts of Norse gods?
Marvel lackey: No worries, sir. We've got this covered! We'll have a black man play the role of one the Norse gods.
Marvel exec: How's that going to fly?
Marvel lackey: Well, you know how Hollywood loves its token black men in movies? Well we'll have a black man play the part of Heimdall.
Marvel exec: Who?
Marvel lackey: Exactly! Heimdall is a token Norse god in Norse mythology. People probably would even notice.
Marvel exec: I like it!
==============================
Now the character of Peter Parker, let's imagine that role as a black person. I actually could accept that quite a bit easier as there is not the centuries of history to support that the character should look a certain way. I've enjoyed the parallel world comics where Parker is some Asian ninja in training. It was refreshing. Yet centuries of history doesn't mean something is right per say. Take images of Jesus for example. Usually depicted as a white male, but let's face it, Jesus when he lived on the Earth lived in an Arab land and could have had Arab features so in such a case I would error on the side of the what the culture was like if I was to ever depict what Jesus looked like.
The same principles can be applied to Heimdall and the logic flows out like I said before. Vikings were unlikely to imagine a Norse god as black because they themselves were all white and never seen a black man. It is logical. Now yes, there is the fact it is a movie and the characters are supposed to have been around long enough now to have seen a black person so in theory Heimdall could have one day said to himself that he wanted to get his black on, and from that day forth look like a black man, but really?
Let's look at Shaka Zulu for a moment. Why not have a non-black mexican/spainish person play that role if you were to recast that famous mini-series? Because the cultural differences would make it look stupid! Come on! Use logic here. Yes the logic lead a person into what could be viewed as racist ideals, but unfortunately that is the logic of this issue.
Sigh...
Then again, this is Marvel studios and I haven't been a fan of Marvel in general for years now mainly for stupid stuff like this. And let's be honest, the last good Marvel movies were Iron Man 1 and the second Hulk film, so I'm not really putting a lot of faith in on this movie being good anyhow.
**edit* I saw the PATV, and I get where the guys are coming from about not wanting to sound racist, but I think we need to realize there are times where you have to take a stand for logic even when it leads you to places that would cast you in an ill light by the masses.
I love all the uproar over it from white supremacists (not here, I just happen to enjoy trolling them.)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se
You can't tell me that Marvel wasn't throwing Hollywood a bone there to say, "See it isn't a movie about white power, really." The casting for the role is just about as bad as having a movie about affluent white rich people and the only person with even the hint of darker skin from birth is a black man parking the cars at a restaurant.
Follow the logic.
The idea that someone could watch Roots where the main character was played by Sean Connery and not find the casting choice incredibly distracting is hard to swallow.
There's a minority of roles in film or theatre where the character's race or sex is absolutely crucial to the story (Roots, American History X). And there are others where the context of the setting also makes race or sex important (Robin Hood, the Handmaid's Tale).
Rigorous Scholarship
They're not Vikings. They're aliens from another dimension. This can't be stressed enough. The "There's no black people in scandavia" is a bunk argument. There's no aliens either. Marvel Asgards are NOT equivilant to Norse mythology. They share a lot of elements, but Marvel takes as many liberties with the source material as they want to.
I mean, shit, Thor is supposed to have red hair and a beard, but traditionally he's run around the Marvel universe clean shaven with Fabio's hair. Also, I don't recall there being a giant, remote controlled robot suit OF THE GODS in norse mythology. I could be wrong about that though.
what has the world come to