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.
You miss the point that the Asgardians aren't the actual Norse gods from Norse mythology. They're an advanced civilization that had contact with humans in the past. The myths arose from the contact, but the Norse did not "create" the Asgardians.
In short, Thor is not really the god of thunder. And none of the Asgardians are actually Vikings or Scandinavians.
That's where the continuity stands in the Marvel world, at least.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
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."
This whole debate is very similar to the one about 'The Merchant of Venice.'
There is a rich Jewish guy (who's a converted Catholic) who loans money. And every character in the play hates him. It isn't because he's Jewish, it is because he loans money with interest, a terrible sin back then, as money making money was "bad thing."
So when someone goes and tries to cast someone as Shylock, there is almost, without fail, a shitstorm about antisemitism. Should a Jew play him, should it be someone else, yadda yadda.
Much like the Heimdall debate, it really doesn't matter. It's just semantics about a part that could be played by anyone of any race.
There seems to be complete disregard for societal context in people's analysis.
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
but you did bring up Othello and thats sort of ridiculous.
it's no less ridiculous than sitting in a room watching people fake stab each other and thinking "yes this pleases me" and then shouting "HEY WAIT A MINUTE THAT DUDE ISN'T BLACK!"
the only sensitive issue in the matter would be why someone would cast a white othello when black actors are marginalized to begin with
I feel like your deconstruction here is really unwarranted. Common sense is not always a bad thing, even in philosophy.
One thing you seem to be missing is the attempt to simulate reality. Why did they put the 17th century actors playing Othello in blackface, by your logic? In both cases its clearly not actually a Moorish prince, and yet they chose to use blackface. Just as the male actors playing women tended to be young, feminine-looking, and cross-dressed. Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?
For that matter, why have actors have blocking? Why even show actors' faces? Fuck it - why have plays?! Your argument, carried to conclusion, is that the written word contains the complete artistic merit and can deliver an identical experience to a play or movie. To this, I offer the counter-evidence of theater and film.
For whatever reason, suspension of disbelief seems to calibrate to the tools available to simulate reality. Having a white actor play a black character for no purpose merely adds confusion for little apparent gain. The whole point of non-textual media is to simulate reality more fully than text alone. That is the very essence of it, even the often abstract world of theater. We gain a certain unique pleasure in hearing human voices speak the written lines, in seeing human faces express emotion, in seeing actors do battle with stage swords and blood packets.
Do you believe there is merit in fully-realized characters and believable dialogue? These are also about simulating reality. Action movies with astonishing special effects are routinely criticized for their failure to simulate the reality of human emotion, thought, and behavior. You mention quality of acting, but this too is often judged on its ability to simulate reality.
We expect a higher degree of simulation from movies because the toolset to do so is more robust (like locations). And perhaps movies have overtaken theater because there is value and pleasure in more full simulation of reality. Your argument also questions why we might bother to be concerned with inconsistency, plot holes, etc. Why even have a coherent narrative? One might choose to tell an incoherent or non-linear story, but without deliberate and skillful construction, this would be misguided.
Now, I will say that deliberate stylization can add value and enjoyment. I saw the mid-2000s revival of Sweeny Todd, which was single-set and the actors were the orchestra, and murders were signified by a screeching sound and the pouring of pig's blood from one bucket into another bucket. And that was a fantastic production.
However, the stylization was deliberate and aesthetically well-constructed. There was enjoyment to be gained unique to that delivery of the material.
I would argue that simply casting a white actor as a black character adds confusion and inhibits suspension of disbelief, but with none of the whimsy or fun of buckets of blood. Because we expect directors to simulate reality to the best of their medium (because that is the purpose of non-textual media), we are fair to ask "why" when they choose not to. If there is no answer, I find it reasonable to be dissatisfied. If the answer is because it means you get to watch Patti LuPone play a tuba, then it's probably worthwhile. Actually, this is the premise of musicals in general. We choose to deliberately sacrifice precision of simulation because we enjoy the music and singing. Sacrificing clarity and credibility for no reason is not artistically equivalent to Aaron Sorkin's dialogue or The Wizard of Oz. Stylization is risky, and need to yield artistic merit beyond its costs.
You seem to want to lead people to the realization that fiction is fiction, but I'm not sure why. I don't really see what actual enlightenment this little Philosophy 102 exercise has to offer.
but you did bring up Othello and thats sort of ridiculous.
it's no less ridiculous than sitting in a room watching people fake stab each other and thinking "yes this pleases me" and then shouting "HEY WAIT A MINUTE THAT DUDE ISN'T BLACK!"
the only sensitive issue in the matter would be why someone would cast a white othello when black actors are marginalized to begin with
I feel like your deconstruction here is really unwarranted. Common sense is not always a bad thing, even in philosophy.
One thing you seem to be missing is theattempt to simulate reality. Why did they put the 17th century actors playing Othello in blackface, by your logic? In both cases its clearly not actually a Moorish prince, and yet they chose to use blackface. Just as the male actors playing women tended to be young, feminine-looking, and cross-dressed. Why not simply have men?
**For that matter, why have actors have blocking? Why even show actors' faces? Fuck it - why have plays?! Your argument, carried to conclusion, is that the written word contains the complete artistic merit and can deliver an identical experience to a play or movie. To this, I offer the counter-evidence of theater and film.
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
I think it's pretty awesome that Heimdall is being cast as an African American man. It's a positive role and not a stereotype - he's not a brute from some exotic land or comic relief.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I haven't read the entirety of this monstrosity, but I would like to point out that whoever offered Othello as a rebuttal for why race matters in casting is a total dumbass goosebag.
Heimdall can be black because there's nothing about Heimdall that is context dependent about his race. Heimdall can be Mexican, or Martian, or be the living skin of a leather briefcase.
Atomika on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
This whole thing reminds me of the thing with Avatar the Last Airbender and them casting some white actors instead of Asian actors, except here they are casting a black guy instead of someone white. Does this mean that it only matters if it happens to people who arn't white?
This whole thing reminds me of the thing with Avatar the Last Airbender and them casting some white actors instead of Asian actors, except here they are casting a black guy instead of someone white. Does this mean that it only matters if it happens to people who arn't white?
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
You're phenomenally missing my point. I know why they didn't use women or black actors. I am not in fact a moron, and have occasionally read a fucking book. My point is, by Podly's logic what would have been the point of the blackface or cross-dressing? Both are obviously not reality. He's drawing a false equivalency that I am debating. His whole argument was "why signify?" yet you're telling me they did it to signify who the character was to add clarity without actually using a black actor. Bravo, you're actually agreeing with me.
This whole thing reminds me of the thing with Avatar the Last Airbender and them casting some white actors instead of Asian actors, except here they are casting a black guy instead of someone white. Does this mean that it only matters if it happens to people who arn't white?
Yes.
White people are not systemically excluded from media except when being relentlessly stereotyped, unlike other groups.
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
You're phenomenally missing my point. I know why they didn't use women or black actors. I am not in fact a moron, and have occasionally read a fucking book. My point is, by Podly's logic what would have been the point of the blackface or cross-dressing? Both are obviously not reality. He's drawing a false equivalency that I am debating. His whole argument was "why signify?" yet you're telling me they did it to signify who the character was to add clarity without actually using a black actor. Bravo, you're actually agreeing with me.
This whole thing reminds me of the thing with Avatar the Last Airbender and them casting some white actors instead of Asian actors, except here they are casting a black guy instead of someone white. Does this mean that it only matters if it happens to people who arn't white?
Yes.
White people are not systemically excluded from media except when being relentlessly stereotyped, unlike other groups.
I wish there were a way to lime something multiple times.
FroThulhu on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Thats cool, im not arguing it, i'm just bringing up the question.
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
You're phenomenally missing my point. I know why they didn't use women or black actors. I am not in fact a moron, and have occasionally read a fucking book. My point is, by Podly's logic what would have been the point of the blackface or cross-dressing? Both are obviously not reality. He's drawing a false equivalency that I am debating. His whole argument was "why signify?" yet you're telling me they did it to signify who the character was to add clarity without actually using a black actor. Bravo, you're actually agreeing with me.
Actually what you're looking for here is reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid rhetorical/logical tool. Please try harder.
Edit: Please see my previous post's edits as well, as I am typing in a phone.
As for Podly's argument. I'm not familiar with or addressing it. But you did ask why and I just gave a reasonable answer to the question which brings up a pretty important point. In your examples you are more often than not looking at roles that had some context within them that required the cast to say X is happening because of a trait this character has. Be it a vagina for acceptable kisses or skin pigmentation causing a cultural devaluation.
In these instances you have a problem which only furthers itself by things like blackface and crossdressing to circumvent using actors of color or women. In those times there were task that were simply deemed unfit for a white person or male to perform. If they were seen to be doing these things the crowd would honestly be confused as hell so in come the probs. Now the actor can convey HEY THIS PERSON IS INFERIOR or in a less conflicting manner HEY THIS PERSON IS OPPRESSED (because of. . .) without spending a lot of stage time fleshing out the themes.
In the case of Heimidall throw some crazy armor on him. Give him some larger than life weapons and context satisfied. Nothing else about the character is particularly necessary to make him who he is.
Would the move Powder work with an actor who looked any other way than white? No. Because it's actually an issue for the character. Would the Bourne Identity work with a mexican lead? Sure would.
Using one tactic does not mean that you cannot be guilty of using another.
True, but I didn't use a slippery slope fallacy because that's not what a slippery slope fallacy is. If you want to argue otherwise, maybe you should make a real argument, instead of condescendingly posting a link and making a blind statement when you seem to have failed to understand both my post, podly's argument, and what a slippery slope is.
There's little more unflattering than uninformed smugness.
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
You're phenomenally missing my point. I know why they didn't use women or black actors. I am not in fact a moron, and have occasionally read a fucking book. My point is, by Podly's logic what would have been the point of the blackface or cross-dressing? Both are obviously not reality. He's drawing a false equivalency that I am debating. His whole argument was "why signify?" yet you're telling me they did it to signify who the character was to add clarity without actually using a black actor. Bravo, you're actually agreeing with me.
Actually what you're looking for here is reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid rhetorical/logical tool. Please try harder.
Edit: Please see my previous post's edits as well, as I am typing in a phone.
As for Podly's argument. I'm not familiar with or addressing it. But you did ask why and I just gave a reasonable answer to the question which brings up a pretty important point. In your examples you are more often than not looking at roles that had some context within them that required the cast to say X is happening because of a trait this character has. Be it a vagina for acceptable kisses or skin pigmentation causing a cultural devaluation.
In these instances you have a problem which only furthers itself by things like blackface and crossdressing to circumvent using actors of color or women. In those times there were task that were simply deemed unfit for a white person or male to perform. If they were seen to be doing these things the crowd would honestly be confused as hell so in come the probs. Now the actor can convey HEY THIS PERSON IS INFERIOR or in a less conflicting manner HEY THIS PERSON IS OPPRESSED (because of. . .) without spending a lot of stage time fleshing out the themes.
In the case of Heimidall throw some crazy armor on him. Give him some larger than life weapons and context satisfied. Nothing else about the character is particularly necessary to make him who he is.
Would the move Powder work with an actor who looked any other way than white? No. Because it's actually an issue for the character. Would the Bourne Identity work with a mexican lead? Sure would.
You should understand the debate you insert yourself into, just maybe. I'm not talking about Heimdall. I actually reds this entire thread, and am responding to a specific philosophical tangent about the merit of simulating reality. I am, in fact, exclusively talking about instaces of characters who are crucially informed by their race (or whatever).
So, everything you just wrote is inapplicable. I feel like you have no interest in arguing against anything but the stitled arguments you want to see.
Using one tactic does not mean that you cannot be guilty of using another.
True, but I didn't use a slippery slope fallacy because that's not what a slippery slope fallacy is. If you want to argue otherwise, maybe you should make a real argument, instead of condescendingly posting a link and making a blind statement when you seem to have failed to understand both my post, podly's argument, and what a slippery slope is.
There's little more unflattering than uninformed smugness.
Look up.
Anyway to say that if the race of a character doesn't matter the next thing we could remove is blocking or hey why even have plays since nothing is important is definitely making a huge and irrational jump.
I haven't read the entirety of this monstrosity, but I would like to point out that whoever offered Othello as a rebuttal for why race matters in casting is a total dumbass goosebag.
Heimdall can be black because there's nothing about Heimdall that is context dependent about his race. Heimdall can be Mexican, or Martian, or be the living skin of a leather briefcase.
First of all, let me say:
Heimdall is not black. It's not a racist thing, it's an 'Internally consistent' thing. Your argument falls apart when one considers purely the merits of what you're suggesting:
Let's replace the actor playing Heimdall with the living skin of a leather briefcase. Now, go pitch that idea to Hollywood Moguls for a blockbuster. Did that work? No? It's because some internal consistency is required for the suspension of disbelief and Heimdall goes against the grain in this case.
In point of fact, the actor himself acknowledged the incongruous nature of it.
That having been said, I'm going to go see Thor. If the biggest inconsistency you can find in a movie about an Ancient Norse deity that lives in the United States and refuses to speak anything but Ye Olde Englysh is that a black guy is Heimdall, you aren't looking hard enough.
I'm still waiting for Marvel to pick up my idea for Coyote moving to Italy and refusing to speak anything but Latin.:(
Using one tactic does not mean that you cannot be guilty of using another.
True, but I didn't use a slippery slope fallacy because that's not what a slippery slope fallacy is. If you want to argue otherwise, maybe you should make a real argument, instead of condescendingly posting a link and making a blind statement when you seem to have failed to understand both my post, podly's argument, and what a slippery slope is.
There's little more unflattering than uninformed smugness.
Look up.
So I take it you're conceding that you have no ground to stand on, by virtue of refusing to evidence your positive claim? Thats fine with me.
I would point out more thoroughly why I have not made a slippery slope, but I'm on a phone and quoting wiki is hard. However, the burden does rest with the rebuttal making the positive claim.
Anyway to say that if the race of a character doesn't matter the next thing we could remove is blocking or hey why even have plays since nothing is important is definitely making a huge and irrational jump.
Not when the character in question is Othello.
I employed a clear analytic framework for explaining this. We're fundamentally talking about simulating reality. Calling a white actor a black moor is jarring and surreal. For no reason. Havig heimdall be black does not affect simulation of reality - it is a different argument entirely that I am not having; please stop having it with my posts.
Using one tactic does not mean that you cannot be guilty of using another.
True, but I didn't use a slippery slope fallacy because that's not what a slippery slope fallacy is. If you want to argue otherwise, maybe you should make a real argument, instead of condescendingly posting a link and making a blind statement when you seem to have failed to understand both my post, podly's argument, and what a slippery slope is.
There's little more unflattering than uninformed smugness.
Look up.
So I take it you're conceding that you have no ground to stand on, by virtue of refusing to evidence your positive claim? Thats fine with me.
I'm definitely not going to read the entire thread but having said that there's plenty of ground for my statements. The whole thing seems pretty well articulated in defiance of the idea that accepting a work as fiction could lead to removing key concepts like blocking.
Also I did a pretty decent job of answering the question of why put characters in blackface or crossdress them.
But apparently without having read the whole thread the comments are no longer germane.
(edit: this is really funny since it's very similar to the topic of the thread.)
I'm definitely not going to read the entire thread but having said that there's plenty of ground for my statements. The whole thing seems pretty well articulated in defiance of the idea that accepting a work as fiction could lead to removing key concepts like blocking.
That's MY argument.
Also I did a pretty decent job of answering the question of why put characters in blackface or crossdress them.
This is in fact what I did in my first post in this thread, but with greater detail and in response to podly's specific point. My question was rhetorical. Was that not obvious?
But apparently without having read the whole thread the comments are no longer germane.
(edit: this is really funny since it's very similar to the topic of the thread.)
They're not germane because you are consistently misunderstanding and simplifying all sides and having a parallel argument that does not intersect with my arguments. What here cannot be grasped?
Fartacus on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
fartacus, do you think that someone would make a thread about, and that there would be strong opposition to, a play wherein blocking is reversed and everyone faced away from the crowd?
also, you're being a bit of a dick, unnecessarily so
So wait you're saying your argument is that accepting a work as fictional it won't lead to removing things like blocking and the complete destruction of plays.
fartacus, do you think that someone would make a thread about, and that there would be strong opposition to, a play wherein blocking is reversed and everyone faced away from the crowd?
I don't see the relevance to your earlier points or to mine; can you elaborate more?
So wait you're saying your argument is that accepting a work as fictional it won't lead to removing things like blocking and the complete destruction of plays.
Then why did you bring that up?
I said it shouldn't. I also said that Podly's argument didn't provide a framework to understand why it shouldn't, and I then proceeded to propose such a framework. Does my argument make more sense in that context?
Fartacus on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
fartacus, do you think that someone would make a thread about, and that there would be strong opposition to, a play wherein blocking is reversed and everyone faced away from the crowd?
I don't see the relevance to your earlier points or to mine; can you elaborate more?
Were a play to have blocking-reversal, it might work. Maybe the director is a master-blocker, and he wants to obscure the narrative to get a message across. Or maybe someone is just really ugly. Who knows. And while traditional blocking is the easiest way to get a message across, it need not necessarily be done in that way.
HOWEVER, I highly doubt that anyone outside of the theater world would see such a production, nor would most people care. But color-blind casting a norse techno-god creates a major thread on a video game comic forum.
Also Fartacus correct me if I am misinterpreting you but you stated
"Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?"
Is this to imply that since it is okay to have a black Heimidall it should be okay for a character that would usually be in black face or cross-dressed appear without any alteration?
Were a play to have blocking-reversal, it might work. Maybe the director is a master-blocker, and he wants to obscure the narrative to get a message across. Or maybe someone is just really ugly. Who knows. And while traditional blocking is the easiest way to get a message across, it need not necessarily be done in that way.
Oh I agree, but it would have to serve a purpose. There would have to be artistic yield, enjoyment yield.
HOWEVER, I highly doubt that anyone outside of the theater world would see such a production, nor would most people care. But color-blind casting a norse techno-god creates a major thread on a video game comic forum.
Sure. Which is racist bullshit. I like the Heimdall casting. I was excited when I heard and moreso when I saw the trailer. I find the argument about it to be extremely clear-cut and boring. I found your posts interesting because they went further, to more provocative territory. That is the argument I wanted to have. I don't give a shit about Heimdall except that I like Elba and I'm really glad Marvel decided to do color-blind casting on the character (though it's still sadly inadequate).
I just stated last page that I didn't care about the Heimdall casting. Where did I imply at all that I was ever talking about this? I was purely responding to Podly/Senjutsu's comments about Othello, suspension of disbelief, and fictionality.
I thought I was known as the guy who posts about hating white people for christs sake. I've been infracted for it! I am not a goddamn basement nerd harboring privileged aspergers rage because my comics character is being played by a brother.
Basically all i've been trying to say is that. Casting of any race in general should not have any affect on the telling of a story. However there seem to be two exceptions the first exception is when casting outside of a projected race would require lengthy explanation and hinder the actual telling of a story such as things with historical context that attempt to show some accuracy. This would also relate to the idea of why black face was used. The audience simply wouldn't understand. The second exception is unfortunately a byproduct of our culture and I have to say a bit of a personal bias. As a lot of other posters have stated minority actors are still marginalized and stereotyped in Hollywood so when there is a role that does not necessitate an individual of a particular race to provide context then there really doesn't seem to be any reason why an actor of any race could be put into that role. This is the opposite of white washing which is a bad thing for what I hope to be obvious reasons. In the end yeah it's all fictional so who gives a fuck what any of the characters look like but let's not do our society a disservice and make every single character white because it's not reflective of the world we live in and ultimately whatever color the person is shouldn't mean a damn thing in reality or in fiction.
Also Fartacus correct me if I am misinterpreting you but you stated
"Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?"
Is this to imply that since it is okay to have a black Heimidall it should be okay for a character that would usually be in black face or cross-dressed appear without any alteration?
No, not at all.
It was to point out that Podly's suggestion that a white guy could play Othello because suspension of disbelief is involve either way didn't do a good job (in my opinion) of explaining why they didn't just have white guys play Othello back in the day.
I'm like, trying to explore a more abstract argument from earlier in the thread.
Basically all i've been trying to say is that. Casting of any race in general should not have any affect on the telling of a story. However there seem to be two exceptions the first exception is when casting outside of a projected race would require lengthy explanation and hinder the actual telling of a story such as things with historical context that attempt to show some accuracy. This would also relate to the idea of why black face was used. The audience simply wouldn't understand. The second exception is unfortunately a byproduct of our culture and I have to say a bit of a personal bias. As a lot of other posters have stated minority actors are still marginalized and stereotyped in Hollywood so when there is a role that does not necessitate an individual of a particular race to provide context then there really doesn't seem to be any reason why an actor of any race could be put into that role. This is the opposite of white washing which is a bad thing for what I hope to be obvious reasons. In the end yeah it's all fictional so who gives a fuck what any of the characters look like but let's not do our society a disservice and make every single character white because it's not reflective of the world we live in and ultimately whatever color the person is shouldn't mean a damn thing in reality or in fiction.
uh. . .so if we agree
:^:
if not i'm lost.
Yes we agree. And have this entire time. And I've been trying to explain for at least the last page. Podly does not agree, in that he believes the first exception you mention is unnecessary.
Also Fartacus correct me if I am misinterpreting you but you stated
"Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?"
Is this to imply that since it is okay to have a black Heimidall it should be okay for a character that would usually be in black face or cross-dressed appear without any alteration?
No, not at all.
It was to point out that Podly's suggestion that a white guy could play Othello because suspension of disbelief is involve either way didn't do a good job (in my opinion) of explaining why they didn't just have white guys play Othello back in the day.
I'm like, trying to explore a more abstract argument from earlier in the thread.
I do think that it is entirely possible to have a white guy play Othello but there are a lot of scenes and ideas that would need bunches added to them to keep in line with the themes of the work.
Posts
In short, Thor is not really the god of thunder. And none of the Asgardians are actually Vikings or Scandinavians.
That's where the continuity stands in the Marvel world, at least.
Rigorous Scholarship
yawn.
Coz he looks pretty god damn awesome IMO.
There is a rich Jewish guy (who's a converted Catholic) who loans money. And every character in the play hates him. It isn't because he's Jewish, it is because he loans money with interest, a terrible sin back then, as money making money was "bad thing."
So when someone goes and tries to cast someone as Shylock, there is almost, without fail, a shitstorm about antisemitism. Should a Jew play him, should it be someone else, yadda yadda.
Much like the Heimdall debate, it really doesn't matter. It's just semantics about a part that could be played by anyone of any race.
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
I feel like your deconstruction here is really unwarranted. Common sense is not always a bad thing, even in philosophy.
One thing you seem to be missing is the attempt to simulate reality. Why did they put the 17th century actors playing Othello in blackface, by your logic? In both cases its clearly not actually a Moorish prince, and yet they chose to use blackface. Just as the male actors playing women tended to be young, feminine-looking, and cross-dressed. Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?
For that matter, why have actors have blocking? Why even show actors' faces? Fuck it - why have plays?! Your argument, carried to conclusion, is that the written word contains the complete artistic merit and can deliver an identical experience to a play or movie. To this, I offer the counter-evidence of theater and film.
For whatever reason, suspension of disbelief seems to calibrate to the tools available to simulate reality. Having a white actor play a black character for no purpose merely adds confusion for little apparent gain. The whole point of non-textual media is to simulate reality more fully than text alone. That is the very essence of it, even the often abstract world of theater. We gain a certain unique pleasure in hearing human voices speak the written lines, in seeing human faces express emotion, in seeing actors do battle with stage swords and blood packets.
Do you believe there is merit in fully-realized characters and believable dialogue? These are also about simulating reality. Action movies with astonishing special effects are routinely criticized for their failure to simulate the reality of human emotion, thought, and behavior. You mention quality of acting, but this too is often judged on its ability to simulate reality.
We expect a higher degree of simulation from movies because the toolset to do so is more robust (like locations). And perhaps movies have overtaken theater because there is value and pleasure in more full simulation of reality. Your argument also questions why we might bother to be concerned with inconsistency, plot holes, etc. Why even have a coherent narrative? One might choose to tell an incoherent or non-linear story, but without deliberate and skillful construction, this would be misguided.
Now, I will say that deliberate stylization can add value and enjoyment. I saw the mid-2000s revival of Sweeny Todd, which was single-set and the actors were the orchestra, and murders were signified by a screeching sound and the pouring of pig's blood from one bucket into another bucket. And that was a fantastic production.
However, the stylization was deliberate and aesthetically well-constructed. There was enjoyment to be gained unique to that delivery of the material.
I would argue that simply casting a white actor as a black character adds confusion and inhibits suspension of disbelief, but with none of the whimsy or fun of buckets of blood. Because we expect directors to simulate reality to the best of their medium (because that is the purpose of non-textual media), we are fair to ask "why" when they choose not to. If there is no answer, I find it reasonable to be dissatisfied. If the answer is because it means you get to watch Patti LuPone play a tuba, then it's probably worthwhile. Actually, this is the premise of musicals in general. We choose to deliberately sacrifice precision of simulation because we enjoy the music and singing. Sacrificing clarity and credibility for no reason is not artistically equivalent to Aaron Sorkin's dialogue or The Wizard of Oz. Stylization is risky, and need to yield artistic merit beyond its costs.
You seem to want to lead people to the realization that fiction is fiction, but I'm not sure why. I don't really see what actual enlightenment this little Philosophy 102 exercise has to offer.
Why? Because black people and women were inferior so they used props to point out that HEY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD BLACK PEOPLE/ WORTHLESS WOMEN
although we'd never really have them on stage with us. Don't worry. It's just a work of fiction.
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Heimdall can be black because there's nothing about Heimdall that is context dependent about his race. Heimdall can be Mexican, or Martian, or be the living skin of a leather briefcase.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Sometimes. Yeah.
Sometimes. Nope.
You're phenomenally missing my point. I know why they didn't use women or black actors. I am not in fact a moron, and have occasionally read a fucking book. My point is, by Podly's logic what would have been the point of the blackface or cross-dressing? Both are obviously not reality. He's drawing a false equivalency that I am debating. His whole argument was "why signify?" yet you're telling me they did it to signify who the character was to add clarity without actually using a black actor. Bravo, you're actually agreeing with me.
Actually what you're looking for here is reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid rhetorical/logical tool. Please try harder.
Edit: Please see my previous post's edits as well, as I am typing in a phone.
Yes.
White people are not systemically excluded from media except when being relentlessly stereotyped, unlike other groups.
Using one tactic does not mean that you cannot be guilty of using another.
I wish there were a way to lime something multiple times.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
As for Podly's argument. I'm not familiar with or addressing it. But you did ask why and I just gave a reasonable answer to the question which brings up a pretty important point. In your examples you are more often than not looking at roles that had some context within them that required the cast to say X is happening because of a trait this character has. Be it a vagina for acceptable kisses or skin pigmentation causing a cultural devaluation.
In these instances you have a problem which only furthers itself by things like blackface and crossdressing to circumvent using actors of color or women. In those times there were task that were simply deemed unfit for a white person or male to perform. If they were seen to be doing these things the crowd would honestly be confused as hell so in come the probs. Now the actor can convey HEY THIS PERSON IS INFERIOR or in a less conflicting manner HEY THIS PERSON IS OPPRESSED (because of. . .) without spending a lot of stage time fleshing out the themes.
In the case of Heimidall throw some crazy armor on him. Give him some larger than life weapons and context satisfied. Nothing else about the character is particularly necessary to make him who he is.
Would the move Powder work with an actor who looked any other way than white? No. Because it's actually an issue for the character. Would the Bourne Identity work with a mexican lead? Sure would.
True, but I didn't use a slippery slope fallacy because that's not what a slippery slope fallacy is. If you want to argue otherwise, maybe you should make a real argument, instead of condescendingly posting a link and making a blind statement when you seem to have failed to understand both my post, podly's argument, and what a slippery slope is.
There's little more unflattering than uninformed smugness.
You should understand the debate you insert yourself into, just maybe. I'm not talking about Heimdall. I actually reds this entire thread, and am responding to a specific philosophical tangent about the merit of simulating reality. I am, in fact, exclusively talking about instaces of characters who are crucially informed by their race (or whatever).
So, everything you just wrote is inapplicable. I feel like you have no interest in arguing against anything but the stitled arguments you want to see.
Look up.
Anyway to say that if the race of a character doesn't matter the next thing we could remove is blocking or hey why even have plays since nothing is important is definitely making a huge and irrational jump.
First of all, let me say:
Heimdall is not black. It's not a racist thing, it's an 'Internally consistent' thing. Your argument falls apart when one considers purely the merits of what you're suggesting:
Let's replace the actor playing Heimdall with the living skin of a leather briefcase. Now, go pitch that idea to Hollywood Moguls for a blockbuster. Did that work? No? It's because some internal consistency is required for the suspension of disbelief and Heimdall goes against the grain in this case.
In point of fact, the actor himself acknowledged the incongruous nature of it.
That having been said, I'm going to go see Thor. If the biggest inconsistency you can find in a movie about an Ancient Norse deity that lives in the United States and refuses to speak anything but Ye Olde Englysh is that a black guy is Heimdall, you aren't looking hard enough.
I'm still waiting for Marvel to pick up my idea for Coyote moving to Italy and refusing to speak anything but Latin.:(
So I take it you're conceding that you have no ground to stand on, by virtue of refusing to evidence your positive claim? Thats fine with me.
Not when the character in question is Othello.
I employed a clear analytic framework for explaining this. We're fundamentally talking about simulating reality. Calling a white actor a black moor is jarring and surreal. For no reason. Havig heimdall be black does not affect simulation of reality - it is a different argument entirely that I am not having; please stop having it with my posts.
I'm definitely not going to read the entire thread but having said that there's plenty of ground for my statements. The whole thing seems pretty well articulated in defiance of the idea that accepting a work as fiction could lead to removing key concepts like blocking.
Also I did a pretty decent job of answering the question of why put characters in blackface or crossdress them.
But apparently without having read the whole thread the comments are no longer germane.
(edit: this is really funny since it's very similar to the topic of the thread.)
That's MY argument.
This is in fact what I did in my first post in this thread, but with greater detail and in response to podly's specific point. My question was rhetorical. Was that not obvious?
They're not germane because you are consistently misunderstanding and simplifying all sides and having a parallel argument that does not intersect with my arguments. What here cannot be grasped?
also, you're being a bit of a dick, unnecessarily so
Then why did you bring that up?
I don't see the relevance to your earlier points or to mine; can you elaborate more?
I said it shouldn't. I also said that Podly's argument didn't provide a framework to understand why it shouldn't, and I then proceeded to propose such a framework. Does my argument make more sense in that context?
Were a play to have blocking-reversal, it might work. Maybe the director is a master-blocker, and he wants to obscure the narrative to get a message across. Or maybe someone is just really ugly. Who knows. And while traditional blocking is the easiest way to get a message across, it need not necessarily be done in that way.
HOWEVER, I highly doubt that anyone outside of the theater world would see such a production, nor would most people care. But color-blind casting a norse techno-god creates a major thread on a video game comic forum.
The idea is that if we accept "yes this is a work of fiction" things won't lead to the entire work being cast aside. Right?
Cast aside as in.
"Why even show actors' faces? Fuck it - why have plays?! "
"Why not simply have men without the accoutrements?"
Is this to imply that since it is okay to have a black Heimidall it should be okay for a character that would usually be in black face or cross-dressed appear without any alteration?
Oh I agree, but it would have to serve a purpose. There would have to be artistic yield, enjoyment yield.
Sure. Which is racist bullshit. I like the Heimdall casting. I was excited when I heard and moreso when I saw the trailer. I find the argument about it to be extremely clear-cut and boring. I found your posts interesting because they went further, to more provocative territory. That is the argument I wanted to have. I don't give a shit about Heimdall except that I like Elba and I'm really glad Marvel decided to do color-blind casting on the character (though it's still sadly inadequate).
Basically all i've been trying to say is that. Casting of any race in general should not have any affect on the telling of a story. However there seem to be two exceptions the first exception is when casting outside of a projected race would require lengthy explanation and hinder the actual telling of a story such as things with historical context that attempt to show some accuracy. This would also relate to the idea of why black face was used. The audience simply wouldn't understand. The second exception is unfortunately a byproduct of our culture and I have to say a bit of a personal bias. As a lot of other posters have stated minority actors are still marginalized and stereotyped in Hollywood so when there is a role that does not necessitate an individual of a particular race to provide context then there really doesn't seem to be any reason why an actor of any race could be put into that role. This is the opposite of white washing which is a bad thing for what I hope to be obvious reasons. In the end yeah it's all fictional so who gives a fuck what any of the characters look like but let's not do our society a disservice and make every single character white because it's not reflective of the world we live in and ultimately whatever color the person is shouldn't mean a damn thing in reality or in fiction.
uh. . .so if we agree
:^:
if not i'm lost.
No, not at all.
It was to point out that Podly's suggestion that a white guy could play Othello because suspension of disbelief is involve either way didn't do a good job (in my opinion) of explaining why they didn't just have white guys play Othello back in the day.
I'm like, trying to explore a more abstract argument from earlier in the thread.
Yes we agree. And have this entire time. And I've been trying to explain for at least the last page. Podly does not agree, in that he believes the first exception you mention is unnecessary.
I do think that it is entirely possible to have a white guy play Othello but there are a lot of scenes and ideas that would need bunches added to them to keep in line with the themes of the work.