One thing that sometimes bothers me a little about the Coens is their treatment of minorities. I can't imagine them ever making a movie where the protagonist happens to be gay, or black, or asian. They basically just make movies about white goy dudes and jewish dudes. Which isn't the worst thing in the world, but also sometimes the way they treat some of their minority characters can feel a little uncomfortable?
I think the worst example is in The Man Who Wasn't There, where a character that you're supposed to consider a gross slimeball reveals that they're gay when they pass and the protagonist, and it's clearly supposed to make the character even grosser and slimier.
Then there's the scene in True Grit where a native character is about to get hanged - the executioners let the white people say some final words, but then shove a head covering over the native american before he can say anything. I remember liking that scene at the time, because it felt like an honest portrayal of the racism of the period...but in retrospect, isn't it kinda off to make a movie that revolves around white people, then introduce a minority character in a bit part and then do that to him? I feel like you need to make one of the main characters indian for a scene like that to work, or else it just feels like the movie cares as little about native americans as the racists in the movie.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The Coen's position on this seems to be "we're white guys and we want to tell stories about white guys" and it's harder to argue with that when it comes to people on their level as opposed to, like, "why is this ScarJo and not an Asian person in this anime movie."
I think the answer to minority representation on-screen is more to find and empower more minority creators than to try and force existing majority creators to broaden their horizons.
The Coen's position on this seems to be "we're white guys and we want to tell stories about white guys" and it's harder to argue with that when it comes to people on their level as opposed to, like, "why is this ScarJo and not an Asian person in this anime movie."
I think the answer to minority representation on-screen is more to find and empower more minority creators than to try and force existing majority creators to broaden their horizons.
Nah
The Coens are brilliant (and I very rarely use that word) creators.
But they are also getting the Wes Anderson Pass on being so incredibly dismissively white. Like, I actively avoid Anderson, but at least Grand Budapest was lead by a Brown person?
I'll actually give the Comes the lead on Anderson, because they're just fuckin better, but... yeah.
Like... I'm sorry, white folks, but being really good at something doesn't make what you're doing NOT kinda racist.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
... only because, back in 2000, I was still clinging to the VHS standard.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think I'm less bothered by the Coens' lack of diversity because the stories they tell very much depend on the characters they write. True Grit or A Serious Man or Blood Simple or Miller's Crossing would be completely different movies with leads of any other race, gender, or sexuality. Yes they are lacking diversity, but they are telling authentic stories about the characters they create.
Granted, it's not an excuse, but it's a defense at least, and not one people like Michael Bay or Tim Burton can use for the same problem. Bay's characters (and Jim Cameron's, too) are such blank cutouts that literally almost anyone could fill those roles, yet he continues to cast bland white guys. Burton, conversely, tells so many stories about outsiders and the discarded refuse of society--stories ripe for thematic parallels with minority disenfranchisement--and still he tends to go for white folks every time.
Does this give the Coens a pass? That's up to you.
i recently redboxed Assassin's Creed (did i get that possessive right, i don't know!)
it was...much better than expected, but it did not stick the landing. They spent a whole lot of the movie trying to make the main actress come across a certain way and then blamo instant 180 at the end for the sake of sequels. Sadly, and i think someone mentioned this a while back, the historical stuff was entertaining and fairly well done, the modern day stuff was pretty bland by comparison. 4 out of 7
I think I'm less bothered by the Coens' lack of diversity because the stories they tell very much depend on the characters they write. True Grit or A Serious Man or Blood Simple or Miller's Crossing would be completely different movies with leads of any other race, gender, or sexuality. Yes they are lacking diversity, but they are telling authentic stories about the characters they create.
Granted, it's not an excuse, but it's a defense at least, and not one people like Michael Bay or Tim Burton can use for the same problem. Bay's characters (and Jim Cameron's, too) are such blank cutouts that literally almost anyone could fill those roles, yet he continues to cast bland white guys. Burton, conversely, tells so many stories about outsiders and the discarded refuse of society--stories ripe for thematic parallels with minority disenfranchisement--and still he tends to go for white folks every time.
Does this give the Coens a pass? That's up to you.
No, it doesn't, actually
And, while I'm (to my no-joke shame) less progressive than you, I honestly feel just fine saying that this is a case of "I respect this person/people's work, and refuse to indict them for their actions."
And @Kana yes Jewish people absolutely do count as a minority. However, at this time, American Jews are also a minority empowered in a way that black/brown people have never been, at least in Big Entertainment.
I don't think any artist should have to defend themselves for who they choose to tell stories about, as long as they're still saying something worthwhile. Like, I absolutely applaud a director going outside of their own experiences and seeking out other viewpoints to tell their stories from,* but I absolutely refuse to believe that an artist's vision isn't somehow worthy unless they fill a checklist of minority representation.
I'll still criticize the film industry as an industry for not giving minority artists their chance to also find a wide audience for their own work, but I think that's a very different issue than "this white guy hasn't written a movie about being black, therefore he is racist." Though like Atomika said, it's a bit different for bro dude directors like Michael Bay, whose characters could absolutely be any fucking race because they have no characterization anyway.
*BTW I watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul today, and boy does that movie feel fucking depressingly relevant in 2017
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I don't think any artist should have to defend themselves for who they choose to tell stories about, as long as they're still saying something worthwhile. Like, I absolutely applaud a director going outside of their own experiences and seeking out other viewpoints to tell their stories from,* but I absolutely refuse to believe that an artist's vision isn't somehow worthy unless they fill a checklist of minority representation.
I'll still criticize the film industry as an industry for not giving minority artists their chance to also find a wide audience for their own work, but I think that's a very different issue than "this white guy hasn't written a movie about being black, therefore he is racist." Though like Atomika said, it's a bit different for bro dude directors like Michael Bay, whose characters could absolutely be any fucking race because they have no characterization anyway.
*BTW I watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul today, and boy does that movie feel fucking depressingly relevant in 2017
I'm just gonna save the first paragraph of this post and quote it every single time somebody makes a post about Representation or erasure in the movie thread.
Because I've thought all of that, and then found myself at fault. And I'm absolutely ok with finding that fault, and checking myself, per my signature.
If we are to exist in a community that stridently demands changing adapted character's ethnicity due to optics, that can (righteously) call in to question a creator's chauvinist homes, that can peel away the fundamental layers of a work's elements in order to expose the product's Problematic elements, then we can sure as fuck say "hey, why have you not ONCE ever made a movie starring a Honduran woman, or a Umatilla Native man, or a transperson?"
If the Marvel thread can insist that Any Old Non-White Person should -not could- have played Doctor Strange, then we can say that Angela Bassett would have been great in Fargo, or the roles reversed between Jackman and Glover in Tannenbaums.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To put it succinctly, the Coens prefer to tell stories about white folks, while Michael Bay just prefers to work with them
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
In defense of white hetero dudes creating stories about white hetero dudes, there is a strain of progressive thought that feels that a white/hetero/male writing from the perspective of a minority/lgbt/female is appropriation. And that the proper thing for them to do is to just literally not create stories so they can instead serve as megaphones for actual minority/lgbt/ female voices.
Which I feel is a bit extreme, but also makes a valid point: the person most qualified to write an authentic minority perspective is a minority, and both creators and consumers have a responsibility to promote that shit.
I'm not going to fault a white dude for writing from the perspective of a white dude, because it's admittedly a minefield to do otherwise, and it's probably something better to not do at all than to do poorly. And there's still plenty that can be done in terms of just not writing harmful, backwards tropes and stereotypes into your work. But I feel this is one of those things like the Bechdel test, where analysis is more useful at the macro level, and it's not really fair to fault individual artists for not going out of their way to be super progressive to the extent that they're not actively doing bad.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Hey. Regardless of where your opinions on the movies fall (and, let's face it, we all have them), the Star Wars PT DVDs are pretty much the gold standard of comprehensive extras packages, and the central making-of documentaries are universally outstanding. The OT's bonus disc (from the initial 2004 release, anyway) as well, again, especially because of its colossal main documentary. And virtually none of that stuff was duplicated on the BD set either because they went for a whole new extras package instead. So I will part from my Star Wars DVDs when you pry them from my cold, dead, probably severed hand.
Hey Ima let you finish, but the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions are the most comprehensive DVDs OF ALL TIME. We're talking a brand new cut of the movie not shown in theaters. We're talking 3-4 worthwhile full length commentary tracks per film. We're talking MULTIPLE documentaries longer than the film itself. We're talking multiple appendices to show their work from the adaptation to the screen.
Star Wars DVDs are great and I love them but nah. The LOTR DVDs are like you get every scene ever filmed for the movie and more behind the scenes stuff than you can shake a stick at AND a film class based on the series that you would take at a university, all at once.
+12
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
To elaborate on Jeffes point:
Minority and non-cisgendered roles and how they were written in the 90s and 00s by white dudes. It's p fucking horrible.
There could be something said about cisgendered whites trying to learn about minorities and gendered roles, but it's really difficult to get it right.
I don't think any artist should have to defend themselves for who they choose to tell stories about, as long as they're still saying something worthwhile. Like, I absolutely applaud a director going outside of their own experiences and seeking out other viewpoints to tell their stories from,* but I absolutely refuse to believe that an artist's vision isn't somehow worthy unless they fill a checklist of minority representation.
I'll still criticize the film industry as an industry for not giving minority artists their chance to also find a wide audience for their own work, but I think that's a very different issue than "this white guy hasn't written a movie about being black, therefore he is racist." Though like Atomika said, it's a bit different for bro dude directors like Michael Bay, whose characters could absolutely be any fucking race because they have no characterization anyway.
*BTW I watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul today, and boy does that movie feel fucking depressingly relevant in 2017
I would rather have someone admit they don't have the perspective to try and properly (re)present a character that differs in some way from the creator's perspective, than attempt to do so and end up doing badly because they were too sure of themselves - or worse, they didn't care.
Of course, were I in the position of having tons of money and influence in Hollywood, I would probably just start my own production company and try to find people of all kinds of ethnic/religious/whatever backgrounds and fund projects for them to get those sorts of stories told, rather than just going "well, I don't trust myself to do it" and stopping there.
(Which is, tbf, really easy for me to declare, since the odds of me ever being in a position to back up my words with actions is extremely low.)
I would rather have someone admit they don't have the perspective to try and properly (re)present a character that differs in some way from the creator's perspective, than attempt to do so and end up doing badly because they were too sure of themselves - or worse, they didn't care.
Of course, were I in the position of having tons of money and influence in Hollywood, I would probably just start my own production company and try to find people of all kinds of ethnic/religious/whatever backgrounds and fund projects for them to get those sorts of stories told, rather than just going "well, I don't trust myself to do it" and stopping there.
(Which is, tbf, really easy for me to declare, since the odds of me ever being in a position to back up my words with actions is extremely low.)
Yeah. Saying stuff like this is only half of the equation, tho. It's justified, but at the same time, we need to support stuff like Get Out or Moonlight. Quality fucking movies, you know?
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
One thing just from a strategic point of view is that the Coens and people in their area are not really subject to public pressure the way Marvel is. They make small movies that don't cost much, don't make much, garner critical acclaim or not, and basically just amuse themselves. There's probably no amount of public outcry that would cause the Coens to make a movie they didn't want to make.
But beyond that I think artists should have the freedom to tell the stories they want to tell. Certainly we can encourage but like I said, it's way better to just make sure more minorities are given creative control. In an ideal world the Coens get to make movies about white people and [black director pair] get to make movies about black people and everybody gets both freedom and representation. We should push the buttons that move us directly toward our ideal and not ones that trade part of that ideal for another part.
Astaereth on
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
Oh and Black Panther needs to do well.
They picked one hell of an actor to do it, and with the Marvel backing I really hope they get this shit right.
I don't think any artist should have to defend themselves for who they choose to tell stories about, as long as they're still saying something worthwhile. Like, I absolutely applaud a director going outside of their own experiences and seeking out other viewpoints to tell their stories from,* but I absolutely refuse to believe that an artist's vision isn't somehow worthy unless they fill a checklist of minority representation.
I'll still criticize the film industry as an industry for not giving minority artists their chance to also find a wide audience for their own work, but I think that's a very different issue than "this white guy hasn't written a movie about being black, therefore he is racist." Though like Atomika said, it's a bit different for bro dude directors like Michael Bay, whose characters could absolutely be any fucking race because they have no characterization anyway.
*BTW I watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul today, and boy does that movie feel fucking depressingly relevant in 2017
I'm just gonna save the first paragraph of this post and quote it every single time somebody makes a post about Representation or erasure in the movie thread.
Because I've thought all of that, and then found myself at fault. And I'm absolutely ok with finding that fault, and checking myself, per my signature.
If we are to exist in a community that stridently demands changing adapted character's ethnicity due to optics, that can (righteously) call in to question a creator's chauvinist homes, that can peel away the fundamental layers of a work's elements in order to expose the product's Problematic elements, then we can sure as fuck say "hey, why have you not ONCE ever made a movie starring a Honduran woman, or a Umatilla Native man, or a transperson?"
If the Marvel thread can insist that Any Old Non-White Person should -not could- have played Doctor Strange, then we can say that Angela Bassett would have been great in Fargo, or the roles reversed between Jackman and Glover in Tannenbaums.
Those aren't the same thing at all. One is critiquing a work based on its qualities and choices made in production. The other is critiquing an artist based not on the stories they have told, but instead that they should have been telling other stories, no matter whether it's a story that they have an artistic passion to tell or not. And that by not meeting this arbitrary, external expectation, that they - not their work, but them as a person - are Problematic.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
One thing just from a strategic point of view is that the Coens and people in their area are not really subject to public pressure the way Marvel is. They make small movies that don't cost much, don't make much, garner critical acclaim or not, and basically just amuse themselves. There's probably no amount of public outcry that would cause the Coens to make a movie they didn't want to make.
But beyond that I think artists should have the freedom to tell the stories they want to tell. Certainly we can encourage but like I said, it's way better to just make sure more minorities are given creative control. In an ideal world the Coens get to make movies about white people and the Smiths get to make movies about black people and everybody gets both freedom and representation. We should push the buttons that move us directly toward our ideal and not ones that trade part of that ideal for another part.
Yeah, I think the problem has been more that the Get Outs wouldn't get the greenlight, rather than the Coen's did whatever thing they wanted.
The sort of "hey, you fucked up casting" is a bigger issue for the bigger movies, because once you get to a professional level in Hollywood, that's how you advance further, and that route has been severely restricted for nonwhite dudes (and older women, for example). Although that is changing. Presumably someone wants the Fast and Furious money, and people are letting Hellen Mirren and Cate Blanchett and the like kick some ass now.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To put it succinctly, the Coens prefer to tell stories about white folks, while Michael Bay just prefers to work with them
Which is a distinction justified only by the quality of these artist's work.
A dumb-dumb who Just Can't Think Good is no worse or better than a Genius Who Actively Doesn't Care.
The real treat is that this is just, like... A thing, man.
well, I'd say not just "quality" but authorial intent, as well.
Bay (the shorthand industry whipping boy) prefers to use white actors, and whatever his reasons may be, they have nothing to do with the characters being played. There's no great excuse for that, as the polarity of explanation starts at "people just like seeing white people more" and ends at "I don't like hiring minorities." That has little to do with the quality of Bay's work, I'd argue, it's just his preference.
Conversely, the Coens are deliberate in the characters they create, and they all just happen to be white. But their race is essential to the character, or would change the narrative context in large ways if changed. And sometimes they cross the casting lines, they're not terribly picky. They've cast the Italian John Turturro as both Jewish and Anglo, Jewish Dan Hedaya as a Texas Redneck, Guatemalan Oscar Issac as a Jewish folk singer from New Jersey, and David Thewlis as a Spaniard.
But yeah, at the end of the day those characters and actors are "White" under the traditional understanding, and that muddies the question.
However, I've seen films like Glory and Free State of Jones and then I've seen films like 12 Years a Slave and 2016's Birth of a Nation and there is a gulf of difference between those film in authorial intent and perspective. If we're getting a film about an authentic minority experience, having an authentic voice makes a world of difference.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, as a trans person, films about the "transgender experience" told without a shred of input from the trans community routinely end up being sensationalist, objectifying, harmful, and flat-out fucking wrong.
So I kinda get the desire for authenticity to be told via authentic voices.
+9
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I really think Black Panther could be an incredibly important movie, but this is coming from a white dude so grains of salt and all.
It's directly facing down the idea of minorities in blockbusters and profitability.
Pls don't fuck this up, Marvel. You've got fucking Boseman who steals every damn scene he's in.
To put it succinctly, the Coens prefer to tell stories about white folks, while Michael Bay just prefers to work with them
Which is a distinction justified only by the quality of these artist's work.
A dumb-dumb who Just Can't Think Good is no worse or better than a Genius Who Actively Doesn't Care.
The real treat is that this is just, like... A thing, man.
I dunno.
Maybe they're cognizant of the fact they just couldn't do it correctly?
I mean, or not. I'm not in their heads.
I'm saying, honestly, that the Coens could absolutely do it.
It's been awhile since I've seen Fargo, but Frances McDormond is no different from the five black women who live in or around Fargo, North Dakota. People sometimes aren't aware that Anybody could say the same things and take the same steps as whomever in whatever movie. That lady could've been Native. The only thing separating Jeff Bridges the Dude and, say... B.D. Wong the Dude is what the audience thinks- not the director, or the writer. If the director/writer is as brilliant as we think.
I'm not actually in the middle of hating the Coens. I'm actually just trying to point out that people tend to give Media Darlings a pass, even in here.
Here's the thing though--cultural context is important to many characters, and somebody from a minority or oppressed class might have a very different life experience from somebody belonging to a more privileged class. But I don't think every story featuring a minority character has to incorporate those elements into the characterization to be "authentic".
I don't see any problem with, in many cases, simply being willing to cast whatever person in whatever role. You don't have to make some special effort to be culturally sensitive if the story doesn't touch specifically on those topics. You can just say "okay, I'm going to cast this black actor in this role but I'm not going to make any specific changes to the character" because we're all just people and there's an incredible range of personalities and types no matter what race or sexuality or background you're looking at. And then if that actor has some ideas they want to bring in on set, maybe be open to that because some of the best moments in cinema have come from such improvisation.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know if "I'm a straight white dude" is a great excuse for exclusively (or almost exclusively) telling stories about that kind of person. Because--in many cases--why couldn't that person come from a minority background?
Now, I'm not saying "boycott the Coen brothers" or anything like that. But I think it's all right to say that a lack of diversity a downside of their work.
P.S. While I don't mind some good ol' Michael Bay-bashing, let's not forget that he launched his directorial career with the iconic classic that is Bad Boys
Edit: So basically what @FroThulhu just said except more long-winded and pontificate-y
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
P.S. While I don't mind some good ol' Michael Bay-bashing, let's not forget that he launched his directorial career with the iconic classic that is Bad Boys
true, but Bay didn't hire those guys, and Smith and Lawrence weren't even the first offered the parts. They cycled through Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, and Arsenio Hall before getting Smith and Lawrence, who at the time were pretty unproven.
P.S. While I don't mind some good ol' Michael Bay-bashing, let's not forget that he launched his directorial career with the iconic classic that is Bad Boys
true, but Bay didn't hire those guys, and Smith and Lawrence weren't even the first offered the parts. They cycled through Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, and Arsenio Hall before getting Smith and Lawrence, who at the time were pretty unproven.
and his filmography is pretty pale after that
He also made Pain and Gain
Which is a movie about awful people, but also features a large Very Brown Man, Anthony Mackie, and a guy with the last name Shalhoub, all as heavily-featured or lead characters. Between Bad Boys, Bad Boys 2 (bonus points for Rollins), and P&G, Bay has a more diverse lead list than Wes Anderson or the Coens.
OTOH, Bay's treatment of women is abhorrent. But he still seems to be aware that not-white people, uh... exist for more than two minutes at a time. Even Brown women! And they're not always sassy (though apparently often).
I mean, the Coens are better film makers, hands fucking down, no contest. But that only begs the question.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
P.S. While I don't mind some good ol' Michael Bay-bashing, let's not forget that he launched his directorial career with the iconic classic that is Bad Boys
true, but Bay didn't hire those guys, and Smith and Lawrence weren't even the first offered the parts. They cycled through Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, and Arsenio Hall before getting Smith and Lawrence, who at the time were pretty unproven.
and his filmography is pretty pale after that
He also made Pain and Gain
Which is a movie about awful people, but also features a large Very Brown Man, Anthony Mackie, and a guy with the last name Shalhoub, all as heavily-featured or lead characters. Between Bad Boys, Bad Boys 2 (bonus points for Rollins), and P&G, Bay has a more diverse lead list than Wes Anderson or the Coens.
OTOH, Bay's treatment of women is abhorrent. But he still seems to be aware that not-white people, uh... exist for more than two minutes at a time. Even Brown women! And they're not always sassy (though apparently often).
I mean, the Coens are better film makers, hands fucking down, no contest. But that only begs the question.
So for Wes Anderson, does Grand Budapest, Darjeeling Unlimited and Seu Jorge just not count, or what?
Yeah, we're told as white guys that privilege makes us blind to certain issues the black community faces. To then turn around and ask a white guy to put words in a minority mouth seems counterproductive. I know there is a line in writing that I wouldn't come close to, let alone cross, when it comes to speaking for any group I'm not in. It's all about the lens. I could write something about a white guy and his interactions with a black guy. If you wanted me to write it from the black guy's lens, 1 I wouldn't do it, and 2, you'd hate it if I did.
Tarantino writes from the black perspective and catches a lot of flack for it. I don't think we need more QT's, perspective wise, we need more minority writers and directors.
Yeah, we're told as white guys that privilege makes us blind to certain issues the black community faces. To then turn around and ask a white guy to put words in a minority mouth seems counterproductive. I know there is a line in writing that I wouldn't come close to, let alone cross, when it comes to speaking for any group I'm not in. It's all about the lens. I could write something about a white guy and his interactions with a black guy. If you wanted me to write it from the black guy's lens, 1 I wouldn't do it, and 2, you'd hate it if I did.
Tarantino writes from the black perspective and catches a lot of flack for it. I don't think we need more QT's, perspective wise, we need more minority writers and directors.
Actually, given Django Unchained, I'd say that Tarantino might be a good lead to follow?
And, given that Wes Anderson has managed to make several movies that apparently heavily feature minority characters as leads, but advertise as the whitest thing I haven't fucked, I still call bullshit.
Edit: also, sometimes, a film with a non-cis-white-male lead doesn't have to be filtered through a Lense,.
Like, so people understand how fucked that sounds?
Yes, being an ethnic minority changes perspective.
Sometimes, you just smoke a lot of weed and bowl a few games. There's a fundamental fuckery in not understanding that a dude with Afghani parents might go a week of doing his fucking job without really doing it differently from Tom O'Hardy.
I've gotten into bar fights just because this dude beat up This lady, instead of because I'm black and he hates that.
Millions, possibly billions, of Brown people live whole stories just like yours, or this or that writer's.
Yeah, we're told as white guys that privilege makes us blind to certain issues the black community faces. To then turn around and ask a white guy to put words in a minority mouth seems counterproductive. I know there is a line in writing that I wouldn't come close to, let alone cross, when it comes to speaking for any group I'm not in. It's all about the lens. I could write something about a white guy and his interactions with a black guy. If you wanted me to write it from the black guy's lens, 1 I wouldn't do it, and 2, you'd hate it if I did.
Tarantino writes from the black perspective and catches a lot of flack for it. I don't think we need more QT's, perspective wise, we need more minority writers and directors.
Actually, given Django Unchained, I'd say that Tarantino might be a good lead to follow?
And, given that Wes Anderson has managed to make several movies that apparently heavily feature minority characters as leads, but advertise as the whitest thing I haven't fucked, I still call bullshit.
I wasn't saying white people can't use minority leads. Grand Budapest for example. But it's not exactly saying a lot about being a minority. He just is. What I'm getting at is, if you want the black guy speaking with authenticity about the black experience, you're going to need a very special white guy with a particular background, like QT, or black writers of any stripe.
Like, I'd write something about a black guy if the story wasn't about being black. If you told me to write an Ocean's 11 type heist movie starring a black man, I'd give it a go. If you asked me to write something like Luke Cage, I'd pass. I don't have that toolset.
And again, QT has said he gets a lot of complaints from black writers and directors. If he's the example, the jury is very divided on him.
Posts
I think the worst example is in The Man Who Wasn't There, where a character that you're supposed to consider a gross slimeball reveals that they're gay when they pass and the protagonist, and it's clearly supposed to make the character even grosser and slimier.
Then there's the scene in True Grit where a native character is about to get hanged - the executioners let the white people say some final words, but then shove a head covering over the native american before he can say anything. I remember liking that scene at the time, because it felt like an honest portrayal of the racism of the period...but in retrospect, isn't it kinda off to make a movie that revolves around white people, then introduce a minority character in a bit part and then do that to him? I feel like you need to make one of the main characters indian for a scene like that to work, or else it just feels like the movie cares as little about native americans as the racists in the movie.
I think the answer to minority representation on-screen is more to find and empower more minority creators than to try and force existing majority creators to broaden their horizons.
Nah
The Coens are brilliant (and I very rarely use that word) creators.
But they are also getting the Wes Anderson Pass on being so incredibly dismissively white. Like, I actively avoid Anderson, but at least Grand Budapest was lead by a Brown person?
I'll actually give the Comes the lead on Anderson, because they're just fuckin better, but... yeah.
Like... I'm sorry, white folks, but being really good at something doesn't make what you're doing NOT kinda racist.
... only because, back in 2000, I was still clinging to the VHS standard.
Granted, it's not an excuse, but it's a defense at least, and not one people like Michael Bay or Tim Burton can use for the same problem. Bay's characters (and Jim Cameron's, too) are such blank cutouts that literally almost anyone could fill those roles, yet he continues to cast bland white guys. Burton, conversely, tells so many stories about outsiders and the discarded refuse of society--stories ripe for thematic parallels with minority disenfranchisement--and still he tends to go for white folks every time.
Does this give the Coens a pass? That's up to you.
it was...much better than expected, but it did not stick the landing. They spent a whole lot of the movie trying to make the main actress come across a certain way and then blamo instant 180 at the end for the sake of sequels. Sadly, and i think someone mentioned this a while back, the historical stuff was entertaining and fairly well done, the modern day stuff was pretty bland by comparison. 4 out of 7
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
No, it doesn't, actually
And, while I'm (to my no-joke shame) less progressive than you, I honestly feel just fine saying that this is a case of "I respect this person/people's work, and refuse to indict them for their actions."
And @Kana yes Jewish people absolutely do count as a minority. However, at this time, American Jews are also a minority empowered in a way that black/brown people have never been, at least in Big Entertainment.
and giving Oscar winning roles to Spanish actors also doesn't count.
Is this a deep cut from my words on the TFA thing? Because I'm p sure I admitted to showing my ass rull quick.
I'll still criticize the film industry as an industry for not giving minority artists their chance to also find a wide audience for their own work, but I think that's a very different issue than "this white guy hasn't written a movie about being black, therefore he is racist." Though like Atomika said, it's a bit different for bro dude directors like Michael Bay, whose characters could absolutely be any fucking race because they have no characterization anyway.
*BTW I watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul today, and boy does that movie feel fucking depressingly relevant in 2017
I think it's a reference to Javier Bardem winning for the Coen's No Country for Old Men.
I'm just gonna save the first paragraph of this post and quote it every single time somebody makes a post about Representation or erasure in the movie thread.
Because I've thought all of that, and then found myself at fault. And I'm absolutely ok with finding that fault, and checking myself, per my signature.
If we are to exist in a community that stridently demands changing adapted character's ethnicity due to optics, that can (righteously) call in to question a creator's chauvinist homes, that can peel away the fundamental layers of a work's elements in order to expose the product's Problematic elements, then we can sure as fuck say "hey, why have you not ONCE ever made a movie starring a Honduran woman, or a Umatilla Native man, or a transperson?"
If the Marvel thread can insist that Any Old Non-White Person should -not could- have played Doctor Strange, then we can say that Angela Bassett would have been great in Fargo, or the roles reversed between Jackman and Glover in Tannenbaums.
Which I feel is a bit extreme, but also makes a valid point: the person most qualified to write an authentic minority perspective is a minority, and both creators and consumers have a responsibility to promote that shit.
I'm not going to fault a white dude for writing from the perspective of a white dude, because it's admittedly a minefield to do otherwise, and it's probably something better to not do at all than to do poorly. And there's still plenty that can be done in terms of just not writing harmful, backwards tropes and stereotypes into your work. But I feel this is one of those things like the Bechdel test, where analysis is more useful at the macro level, and it's not really fair to fault individual artists for not going out of their way to be super progressive to the extent that they're not actively doing bad.
Hey Ima let you finish, but the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions are the most comprehensive DVDs OF ALL TIME. We're talking a brand new cut of the movie not shown in theaters. We're talking 3-4 worthwhile full length commentary tracks per film. We're talking MULTIPLE documentaries longer than the film itself. We're talking multiple appendices to show their work from the adaptation to the screen.
Star Wars DVDs are great and I love them but nah. The LOTR DVDs are like you get every scene ever filmed for the movie and more behind the scenes stuff than you can shake a stick at AND a film class based on the series that you would take at a university, all at once.
Minority and non-cisgendered roles and how they were written in the 90s and 00s by white dudes. It's p fucking horrible.
There could be something said about cisgendered whites trying to learn about minorities and gendered roles, but it's really difficult to get it right.
Which is a distinction justified only by the quality of these artist's work.
A dumb-dumb who Just Can't Think Good is no worse or better than a Genius Who Actively Doesn't Care.
The real treat is that this is just, like... A thing, man.
On the other hand, a lot of filmmakers don't choose to not use actors of color, that's just how standard casting is.
And that is the bullshit that needs to go, because on almost every level it makes no sense, except laziness and racism.
I dunno.
Maybe they're cognizant of the fact they just couldn't do it correctly?
I mean, or not. I'm not in their heads.
Of course, were I in the position of having tons of money and influence in Hollywood, I would probably just start my own production company and try to find people of all kinds of ethnic/religious/whatever backgrounds and fund projects for them to get those sorts of stories told, rather than just going "well, I don't trust myself to do it" and stopping there.
(Which is, tbf, really easy for me to declare, since the odds of me ever being in a position to back up my words with actions is extremely low.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah. Saying stuff like this is only half of the equation, tho. It's justified, but at the same time, we need to support stuff like Get Out or Moonlight. Quality fucking movies, you know?
But beyond that I think artists should have the freedom to tell the stories they want to tell. Certainly we can encourage but like I said, it's way better to just make sure more minorities are given creative control. In an ideal world the Coens get to make movies about white people and [black director pair] get to make movies about black people and everybody gets both freedom and representation. We should push the buttons that move us directly toward our ideal and not ones that trade part of that ideal for another part.
They picked one hell of an actor to do it, and with the Marvel backing I really hope they get this shit right.
Those aren't the same thing at all. One is critiquing a work based on its qualities and choices made in production. The other is critiquing an artist based not on the stories they have told, but instead that they should have been telling other stories, no matter whether it's a story that they have an artistic passion to tell or not. And that by not meeting this arbitrary, external expectation, that they - not their work, but them as a person - are Problematic.
Yeah, I think the problem has been more that the Get Outs wouldn't get the greenlight, rather than the Coen's did whatever thing they wanted.
The sort of "hey, you fucked up casting" is a bigger issue for the bigger movies, because once you get to a professional level in Hollywood, that's how you advance further, and that route has been severely restricted for nonwhite dudes (and older women, for example). Although that is changing. Presumably someone wants the Fast and Furious money, and people are letting Hellen Mirren and Cate Blanchett and the like kick some ass now.
well, I'd say not just "quality" but authorial intent, as well.
Bay (the shorthand industry whipping boy) prefers to use white actors, and whatever his reasons may be, they have nothing to do with the characters being played. There's no great excuse for that, as the polarity of explanation starts at "people just like seeing white people more" and ends at "I don't like hiring minorities." That has little to do with the quality of Bay's work, I'd argue, it's just his preference.
Conversely, the Coens are deliberate in the characters they create, and they all just happen to be white. But their race is essential to the character, or would change the narrative context in large ways if changed. And sometimes they cross the casting lines, they're not terribly picky. They've cast the Italian John Turturro as both Jewish and Anglo, Jewish Dan Hedaya as a Texas Redneck, Guatemalan Oscar Issac as a Jewish folk singer from New Jersey, and David Thewlis as a Spaniard.
But yeah, at the end of the day those characters and actors are "White" under the traditional understanding, and that muddies the question.
However, I've seen films like Glory and Free State of Jones and then I've seen films like 12 Years a Slave and 2016's Birth of a Nation and there is a gulf of difference between those film in authorial intent and perspective. If we're getting a film about an authentic minority experience, having an authentic voice makes a world of difference.
So I kinda get the desire for authenticity to be told via authentic voices.
It's directly facing down the idea of minorities in blockbusters and profitability.
Pls don't fuck this up, Marvel. You've got fucking Boseman who steals every damn scene he's in.
I'm saying, honestly, that the Coens could absolutely do it.
It's been awhile since I've seen Fargo, but Frances McDormond is no different from the five black women who live in or around Fargo, North Dakota. People sometimes aren't aware that Anybody could say the same things and take the same steps as whomever in whatever movie. That lady could've been Native. The only thing separating Jeff Bridges the Dude and, say... B.D. Wong the Dude is what the audience thinks- not the director, or the writer. If the director/writer is as brilliant as we think.
I'm not actually in the middle of hating the Coens. I'm actually just trying to point out that people tend to give Media Darlings a pass, even in here.
Except Wes Anderson. Fuck that guy.
I don't see any problem with, in many cases, simply being willing to cast whatever person in whatever role. You don't have to make some special effort to be culturally sensitive if the story doesn't touch specifically on those topics. You can just say "okay, I'm going to cast this black actor in this role but I'm not going to make any specific changes to the character" because we're all just people and there's an incredible range of personalities and types no matter what race or sexuality or background you're looking at. And then if that actor has some ideas they want to bring in on set, maybe be open to that because some of the best moments in cinema have come from such improvisation.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know if "I'm a straight white dude" is a great excuse for exclusively (or almost exclusively) telling stories about that kind of person. Because--in many cases--why couldn't that person come from a minority background?
Now, I'm not saying "boycott the Coen brothers" or anything like that. But I think it's all right to say that a lack of diversity a downside of their work.
P.S. While I don't mind some good ol' Michael Bay-bashing, let's not forget that he launched his directorial career with the iconic classic that is Bad Boys
Edit: So basically what @FroThulhu just said except more long-winded and pontificate-y
true, but Bay didn't hire those guys, and Smith and Lawrence weren't even the first offered the parts. They cycled through Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, and Arsenio Hall before getting Smith and Lawrence, who at the time were pretty unproven.
and his filmography is pretty pale after that
He also made Pain and Gain
Which is a movie about awful people, but also features a large Very Brown Man, Anthony Mackie, and a guy with the last name Shalhoub, all as heavily-featured or lead characters. Between Bad Boys, Bad Boys 2 (bonus points for Rollins), and P&G, Bay has a more diverse lead list than Wes Anderson or the Coens.
OTOH, Bay's treatment of women is abhorrent. But he still seems to be aware that not-white people, uh... exist for more than two minutes at a time. Even Brown women! And they're not always sassy (though apparently often).
I mean, the Coens are better film makers, hands fucking down, no contest. But that only begs the question.
So for Wes Anderson, does Grand Budapest, Darjeeling Unlimited and Seu Jorge just not count, or what?
Tarantino writes from the black perspective and catches a lot of flack for it. I don't think we need more QT's, perspective wise, we need more minority writers and directors.
Actually, given Django Unchained, I'd say that Tarantino might be a good lead to follow?
And, given that Wes Anderson has managed to make several movies that apparently heavily feature minority characters as leads, but advertise as the whitest thing I haven't fucked, I still call bullshit.
Edit: also, sometimes, a film with a non-cis-white-male lead doesn't have to be filtered through a Lense,.
Like, so people understand how fucked that sounds?
Yes, being an ethnic minority changes perspective.
Sometimes, you just smoke a lot of weed and bowl a few games. There's a fundamental fuckery in not understanding that a dude with Afghani parents might go a week of doing his fucking job without really doing it differently from Tom O'Hardy.
I've gotten into bar fights just because this dude beat up This lady, instead of because I'm black and he hates that.
Millions, possibly billions, of Brown people live whole stories just like yours, or this or that writer's.
I wasn't saying white people can't use minority leads. Grand Budapest for example. But it's not exactly saying a lot about being a minority. He just is. What I'm getting at is, if you want the black guy speaking with authenticity about the black experience, you're going to need a very special white guy with a particular background, like QT, or black writers of any stripe.
Like, I'd write something about a black guy if the story wasn't about being black. If you told me to write an Ocean's 11 type heist movie starring a black man, I'd give it a go. If you asked me to write something like Luke Cage, I'd pass. I don't have that toolset.
And again, QT has said he gets a lot of complaints from black writers and directors. If he's the example, the jury is very divided on him.
I actually rewatched that just last week. Beautiful film.
Fassbinder might be an interesting topic for the current conversation.