White Actors Suing ‘Hamilton’ for Racial Discrimination
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 15139

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 10:15 pm    Post subject:

gblews wrote:
tox wrote:
gblews wrote:
governator wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/jordan-peele-says-cant-see-casting-white-dude-lead-one-movies-104449527.html

What you guys think about that?

(ps. he's not discriminating against white actors, he prefers to make ethnic theme movies)

I think he very much is discriminating against white actors, at least with respect to lead roles in his movies. But I don’t think he is doing anything that MANY other H’wood producers are currently doing except perhaps being out front with it. Darren Aronsky, the Coen Bros, and I think, Ridley Scott, have expressed less than racially tolerant views when commenting about why they don’t have racial minorities in their movies. Doesn’t seem to be much of an issue for them.

BTW, Peele doesn’t make “ethnic” movies exclusively. You might say Get Out had some ethnic themes, but the focus of the movie on black people was coincidental. Us definitely was not an “ethnic” story.

Blackness is absolutely integral to Get Out, what movie did you watch?

Same one you saw only it sounds like I paid attention. The white characters state very clearly that the reason they used black people in their little transformations was because they thought black people were “in”. That means that they likely would have used any people who they considered to be “in”. Means their use of black people in their little game was coincidental.

I get that many people saw a movie with a bunch of black people, a racist cop, and some malevolent white people doing harm to black people, and automatically assumed they were seeing “Mississippi Burning” or “Roots”.

It was more subtle than that, bruh, you had to look a bit deeper.
Quote:
My read on Us was more socioeconomic and would've worked with a white family, but there's probably also a racial read to it.

It DID work with a white family. There was no “racial read” other than what was apparently in your mind. Did you see the part of the movie with Elizabeth Moss’ family? One of the points Peele was trying to get across by including white people in the situation was that this was not all about race.

But I’ll be damned if some folks didn’t still see the movie being about racial issues. Just because a movie has a predominantly black cast, director, and writer, doesn’t guarantee that the movie is all about race. It helps to go into any movie with an open mind, watch the movie, and let that be your guide as to what the movie is actually “about”.


Here are some quotes from Peele himself on Get Out:
Quote:
"It was very important to me to just get the entire audience in touch in some way with the fears inherent [in] being black in this country," Peele says. "Part of being black in this country, and I presume being any minority, is constantly being told that ... we're seeing racism where there just isn't racism."


Quote:
The gestation period for this idea kind of spanned several years, and I think one of the most important milestones in that process was just realizing that every true horror, human horror, American horror has a horror movie that deals with it and allows us to face that fear, except [that] race in a modern sense, hadn't been touched


Quote:
You know the stereotype of all black people know each other, well I think it probably comes from the fact that we can identify with each other's experience in a way that others may have a harder time. So yes, you see a black person anywhere where you're the only two, it's like there's an instant bond, or there should be, is sort of the feeling.

There's also this feeling, the fear of dating outside of one's race also brings with it a loaded group of fears. Am I abandoning my blackness in some way? Am I turning my back on my roots in some way? So I wanted Chris to be dealing with that uncomfortableness of not knowing how he's being judged by the housekeeper and the groundskeeper in this situation.


Yeah, Get Out isn't a story about race. Give me a (bleep) break.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 5:36 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.


Lucy Liu would have been a great cast for Kusanagi. She did a hellofa job playing O-Ren Ishii in Kill Bill Vol 1.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 12:51 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.


Lucy Liu would have been a great cast for Kusanagi. She did a hellofa job playing O-Ren Ishii in Kill Bill Vol 1.


Don’t see why Lucy Liu would be any better than ScarJo for the part of Kusanagi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 1:08 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.


Lucy Liu would have been a great cast for Kusanagi. She did a hellofa job playing O-Ren Ishii in Kill Bill Vol 1.


Don’t see why Lucy Liu would be any better than ScarJo for the part of Kusanagi.


Refer to thread title. White Actors Suing ‘Hamilton’ for Racial Discrimination Why would Charlton Heston play Geronimo? I understand box office revenue.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 1:21 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.


Lucy Liu would have been a great cast for Kusanagi. She did a hellofa job playing O-Ren Ishii in Kill Bill Vol 1.


Don’t see why Lucy Liu would be any better than ScarJo for the part of Kusanagi.


Refer to thread title. White Actors Suing ‘Hamilton’ for Racial Discrimination Why would Charlton Heston play Geronimo? I understand box office revenue.


I still don’t see why Lucy Liu, specifically, would be better than ScarJo for this part.

Assume you mean because Kusunagi is an asian character and Liu is also asian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 1:39 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.


Lucy Liu would have been a great cast for Kusanagi. She did a hellofa job playing O-Ren Ishii in Kill Bill Vol 1.


Don’t see why Lucy Liu would be any better than ScarJo for the part of Kusanagi.


Refer to thread title. White Actors Suing ‘Hamilton’ for Racial Discrimination Why would Charlton Heston play Geronimo? I understand box office revenue.


I still don’t see why Lucy Liu, specifically, would be better than ScarJo for this part.

Assume you mean because Kusunagi is an asian character and Liu is also asian?
Yes, also well known for box office appeal.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 2:13 pm    Post subject:

Using Liu for the role of Kusanagi over Scarjo seems lazy and mildly racist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Using Liu for the role of Kusanagi over Scarjo seems lazy and mildly racist.

How do you come to it being lazy? Using a Asian to portray a Asian is racist?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Using Liu for the role of Kusanagi over Scarjo seems lazy and mildly racist.

How do you come to it being lazy? Using a Asian to portray a Asian is racist?


Look, I say use whoever you want. It is the artists choice.

But if one is going to take the “racially/ethnically accurate” position, then, it seems lazy and racist to suggest Liu over ScarJo.

Kusanagi is Japanese.

Neither Liu or ScarJo are Japanese at all.

So if you are the arbiter, and you suggest Liu over Scarjo, you can’t really claim to care about accurate representation. Know what I mean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 3:45 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Using Liu for the role of Kusanagi over Scarjo seems lazy and mildly racist.

How do you come to it being lazy? Using a Asian to portray a Asian is racist?


Quote:
Look, I say use whoever you want. It is the artists choice.

Artist or producer?
Quote:

But if one is going to take the “racially/ethnically accurate” position, then, it seems lazy and racist to suggest Liu over ScarJo.

Forget optics? In that vein Stepin Fetchit can play Bill Clinton?
Quote:
Kusanagi is Japanese.

Neither Liu or ScarJo are Japanese at all.

They're all Asian, Scarlett Johansson is Caucasian.
Quote:
So if you are the arbiter, and you suggest Liu over Scarjo, you can’t really claim to care about accurate representation. Know what I mean?

I care. Remember my post about Charlton Heston playing Geronimo? How about Johnny Depp playing Tonto in the Lone Ranger? Not to mention Joseph Fiennes cast as African American icon Michael Jackson?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 4:48 pm    Post subject:

"They're all Asian?" Sorry jodeke, but that is just wrong. The character portrayed by ScarJo is specifically Japanese. Not a non-descript Asian person. Japanese and Taiwanese people aren't interchangeable. I know you don't intend to be racist but if you told a person of Taiwanese heritage and a person of Japanese heritage they are the same thing, they would be really offended. They don't even speak the same language or share the same culture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:18 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
"They're all Asian?" Sorry jodeke, but that is just wrong. The character portrayed by ScarJo is specifically Japanese. Not a non-descript Asian person. Japanese and Taiwanese people aren't interchangeable. I know you don't intend to be racist but if you told a person of Taiwanese heritage and a person of Japanese heritage they are the same thing, they would be really offended. They don't even speak the same language or share the same culture.


Decipher the post. I was talking about Kusanagi and Liu. Aren't Kusangi and Liu Asian?

Quote:
Kusanagi is Japanese.

Neither Liu or ScarJo are Japanese at all.

They're all Asian, Scarlett Johansson is Caucasian.

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84581
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:58 pm    Post subject:

Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 15139

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:43 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
If your story requires a white or black or woman or immigrant or straight or gay or trans or whatever lead -- then by all means go for it. However, if you have a generic action blockbuster and you still look to cast a straight white male, why shouldn't that casting choice be scrutinized.

Go back to the Ghost in the Shell argument. Are you really so naive to suggest that the entire writing staff (to say nothing of the production staff) needed Kusanagi to be a white woman like ScarJo for artistic reasons? No, of course that wasn't an artistic decision. It was a financial decision, and so you can't just hide behind artistic freedom as a defense from all criticism.


I don't disagree with you on the opinion that Kusanagi didn't "need" to be played by ScarJo. There are plenty of other actresses who could have played that part.

The real question is, what to you is an acceptable remedy?

Because to me, there are no acceptable remedies other than allowing the film to be made, and also allowing moviegoers decided if it is something they want to see.

A fair start is legitimatizing when people (especially those of Asian descent) criticize the casting. Part of the problem is that whenever events like this happen and people (especially the affected minority), then people (usually the dominant majority, be it white people, men, heterosexual, cis, rich) just dismiss the problem. It doesn't need to be malicious either.

For example, they might take the exact position you've taken in this thread, which is to reduce the solution down to a laissez faire one -- which of course doesn't work so long as most of the money to be made comes from people who are unaffected by systemic biases, i.e. the dominant class. Maybe you can see the laissez faire argument working if people looked to platform and affirm criticisms of the affected minority (say, Asians) so as to make the dominant class (say, white people) more aware of their concerns. Then maybe there'll be enough financial incentive for the casting director to look for an Asian actress (or better yet, a Japanese actress) to play one of the most beloved and seminal Japanese fictional characters. But surprisingly, it seems the same people who propose the laissez faire approach don't support the people who are trying to raise awareness about the issue, and so what you get is ineffectual, purely symbolic boycotting from an easily-ignorable minority.

The fact is that if Asian-Americans just voted with their dollars, they'd never see an Asian lead even in Asian properties because they simply are a smaller market than white people (plus other minorities who might not care when it's not their race in question). If you believe media representation affects people especially in their formative years, then that just won't work. Personally I see the problem as fundamental to capitalism (as with other problems plaguing the industry, from the abuse scandals to the endless deluge of sequels), which is a topic on its own. But safe to say I don't claim to have the panacea. I just know that voting with your dollars ain't it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:57 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.


It’s to point out the flaw in the position.

If you’re going to hold that position, it shouldn’t be one in which well we’ll just get any old asian man to play the role of Ghandi.

Having Ken Jeong play Ghandi makes less sense than having Ben Kingsley play Ghandi to me, even if Jeong and Ghandi are both asian and Kingsley is not.

If it’s accurate and forced character representation in art that you’re after, fine, I don’t agree, and never will, but at least be actually ACCURATE about it. But don’t change a movie about a character with down syndrome and preach about using an actor with severe turrets syndrome and say well they’re both handicapped, close enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84581
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:02 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.


It’s to point out the flaw in the position.

If you’re going to hold that position, it shouldn’t be one in which well we’ll just get any old asian man to play the role of Ghandi.

Having Ken Jeong play Ghandi makes less sense than having Ben Kingsley play Ghandi to me, even if Jeong and Ghandi are both asian and Kingsley is not.

If it’s accurate and forced character representation in art that you’re after, fine, I don’t agree, and never will, but at least be actually ACCURATE about it. But don’t change a movie about a character with down syndrome and preach about using an actor with severe turrets syndrome and say well they’re both handicapped, close enough.


Or conflate Tourette’s Syndrome with Turrets Syndrome, whatever the latter may be (fear of towers, desire to do everything from a position that swivels?)...
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:12 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.


It’s to point out the flaw in the position.

If you’re going to hold that position, it shouldn’t be one in which well we’ll just get any old asian man to play the role of Ghandi.

Having Ken Jeong play Ghandi makes less sense than having Ben Kingsley play Ghandi to me, even if Jeong and Ghandi are both asian and Kingsley is not.

If it’s accurate and forced character representation in art that you’re after, fine, I don’t agree, and never will, but at least be actually ACCURATE about it. But don’t change a movie about a character with down syndrome and preach about using an actor with severe turrets syndrome and say well they’re both handicapped, close enough.


Or conflate Tourette’s Syndrome with Turrets Syndrome, whatever the latter may be (fear of towers, desire to do everything from a position that swivels?)...


Haha. I typed that on my phone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:20 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
A fair start is legitimatizing when people (especially those of Asian descent) criticize the casting. Part of the problem is that whenever events like this happen and people (especially the affected minority), then people (usually the dominant majority, be it white people, men, heterosexual, cis, rich) just dismiss the problem. It doesn't need to be malicious either.

For example, they might take the exact position you've taken in this thread, which is to reduce the solution down to a laissez faire one -- which of course doesn't work so long as most of the money to be made comes from people who are unaffected by systemic biases, i.e. the dominant class. Maybe you can see the laissez faire argument working if people looked to platform and affirm criticisms of the affected minority (say, Asians) so as to make the dominant class (say, white people) more aware of their concerns. Then maybe there'll be enough financial incentive for the casting director to look for an Asian actress (or better yet, a Japanese actress) to play one of the most beloved and seminal Japanese fictional characters. But surprisingly, it seems the same people who propose the laissez faire approach don't support the people who are trying to raise awareness about the issue, and so what you get is ineffectual, purely symbolic boycotting from an easily-ignorable minority.

The fact is that if Asian-Americans just voted with their dollars, they'd never see an Asian lead even in Asian properties because they simply are a smaller market than white people (plus other minorities who might not care when it's not their race in question). If you believe media representation affects people especially in their formative years, then that just won't work. Personally I see the problem as fundamental to capitalism (as with other problems plaguing the industry, from the abuse scandals to the endless deluge of sequels), which is a topic on its own. But safe to say I don't claim to have the panacea. I just know that voting with your dollars ain't it.


Asians represent a very small percentage of the overall population. I'm asian, and I don't really have an issue that we're under represented in film. We're over represented in other areas, like engineering. And we didn't get there by voting with our dollars. So how did we get there? We pursued engineering.

Voting with our dollars, you're right, probably isn't going to change anything. If you're not open to organic change, then the only solution is inorganic change aka legislation.

That's just not something I can get on board with when it comes to art.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 15139

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 11:20 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Asians represent a very small percentage of the overall population. I'm asian, and I don't really have an issue that we're under represented in film. We're over represented in other areas, like engineering. And we didn't get there by voting with our dollars. So how did we get there? We pursued engineering.

Voting with our dollars, you're right, probably isn't going to change anything. If you're not open to organic change, then the only solution is inorganic change aka legislation.

That's just not something I can get on board with when it comes to art.

Not really, your argument can also be to be a strong and loud advocate for accurate representation in productions involving what should be Asian characters -- or to at least give your support to those who are strong and loud advocates. By being vocal about it, you can change the mind of some people who might not have realized that GitS is a Japanese property or might not have understood why it's a problem. That might get enough momentum to get Hollywood execs, especially the conservative, risk-averse ones, to take note. Of course GitS is just metonymy, I am not fixated on this one instance in particular.

To be clear, I'm not saying this will be particularly effectual. But just as a matter of principle, it seems worth doing. There's very little effort involved here and yet it seems to me that most of the laissez faire warriors will spend their time and energy on the other side of the argument.


Last edited by tox on Thu May 30, 2019 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 15139

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 11:30 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.


It’s to point out the flaw in the position.

If you’re going to hold that position, it shouldn’t be one in which well we’ll just get any old asian man to play the role of Ghandi.

Having Ken Jeong play Ghandi makes less sense than having Ben Kingsley play Ghandi to me, even if Jeong and Ghandi are both asian and Kingsley is not.

If it’s accurate and forced character representation in art that you’re after, fine, I don’t agree, and never will, but at least be actually ACCURATE about it. But don’t change a movie about a character with down syndrome and preach about using an actor with severe turrets syndrome and say well they’re both handicapped, close enough.

You didn't point out a flaw, the reason Kingsley makes sense playing Gandhi is because he's half-Indian. Jeong playing Gandhi makes as much sense as Bradley Cooper playing Gandhi. In the case of Asian, it's more useful to separate East Asian from South Asian and West Asian. Even within countries, an Indo-Aryan (i.e. your typical Indian) like Priyanka Chopra playing a Meitei person like Mary Kom is inferior to getting an actual Meitei or otherwise Tibeto--Burman actress.

That said I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, it is important to be accurate. Tourette's and Down syndrome are not the same. But in defense of Jodeke, we should point out that while having a Chinese person play a Japanese character isn't totally accurate, it's more accurate than having a white person play a Japanese character. It's actually something that I've found interesting myself, but generally you don't see Asian-Americans upset that a Randall Kim plays the Chinese dad on Fresh off the Boat. Certainly it beats a white person playing that role. Or in the Mary Kom example above, Priyanka Chopra is still a better choice than Angelina Jolie for that role.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 5:37 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Asians represent a very small percentage of the overall population. I'm asian, and I don't really have an issue that we're under represented in film. We're over represented in other areas, like engineering. And we didn't get there by voting with our dollars. So how did we get there? We pursued engineering.

Voting with our dollars, you're right, probably isn't going to change anything. If you're not open to organic change, then the only solution is inorganic change aka legislation.

That's just not something I can get on board with when it comes to art.

Not really, your argument can also be to be a strong and loud advocate for accurate representation in productions involving what should be Asian characters -- or to at least give your support to those who are strong and loud advocates. By being vocal about it, you can change the mind of some people who might not have realized that GitS is a Japanese property or might not have understood why it's a problem. That might get enough momentum to get Hollywood execs, especially the conservative, risk-averse ones, to take note. Of course GitS is just metonymy, I am not fixated on this one instance in particular.

To be clear, I'm not saying this will be particularly effectual. But just as a matter of principle, it seems worth doing. There's very little effort involved here and yet it seems to me that most of the laissez faire warriors will spend their time and energy on the other side of the argument.


The crux of this thread though was that some people were attempting to use the court of law to mandate how an artist should produce their work. It's that premise that I'm opposed to.

If Peele wants to use an all-black cast, I think he should be entirely allowed to do that. Whether I agree or disagree with his casting choice, is separate, but as you point out, worth discussing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 6:05 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Lol, pretend you don’t see the difference between choosing actors by race for an artistic purpose and the dominant group shutting minorities out tonaooeal to the audience if the dominant race. Then totally jump someone for racial ignorance in the ethnicity of different Asian actors. So on brand.


It’s to point out the flaw in the position.

If you’re going to hold that position, it shouldn’t be one in which well we’ll just get any old asian man to play the role of Ghandi.

Having Ken Jeong play Ghandi makes less sense than having Ben Kingsley play Ghandi to me, even if Jeong and Ghandi are both asian and Kingsley is not.

If it’s accurate and forced character representation in art that you’re after, fine, I don’t agree, and never will, but at least be actually ACCURATE about it. But don’t change a movie about a character with down syndrome and preach about using an actor with severe turrets syndrome and say well they’re both handicapped, close enough.

You didn't point out a flaw, the reason Kingsley makes sense playing Gandhi is because he's half-Indian. Jeong playing Gandhi makes as much sense as Bradley Cooper playing Gandhi. In the case of Asian, it's more useful to separate East Asian from South Asian and West Asian. Even within countries, an Indo-Aryan (i.e. your typical Indian) like Priyanka Chopra playing a Meitei person like Mary Kom is inferior to getting an actual Meitei or otherwise Tibeto--Burman actress.

That said I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, it is important to be accurate. Tourette's and Down syndrome are not the same. But in defense of Jodeke, we should point out that while having a Chinese person play a Japanese character isn't totally accurate, it's more accurate than having a white person play a Japanese character. It's actually something that I've found interesting myself, but generally you don't see Asian-Americans upset that a Randall Kim plays the Chinese dad on Fresh off the Boat. Certainly it beats a white person playing that role. Or in the Mary Kom example above, Priyanka Chopra is still a better choice than Angelina Jolie for that role.


Yeah, my point was just that if accurate representation is a point of contention for someone, then, it should be important to actually be accurate. But this of course is where lumping people into groups can get problematic because depending on who you are, as we have seen in this thread, "accurate" might be so to one and not another.

I don't know enough about Chopra's work to have much of an opinion on whether she'd be a better choice to play Mary Kom than Angelina Jolie. To me, whether someone is better is more dependent on their abilities than their looks. If I felt those two had comparable levels of acting ability, then sure, I'd agree. But I would still defend the right of an artist to cast Angelina Jolie if they wished.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 48401
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:16 am    Post subject:

Fan Bingbing is Chinese, Miyoshi Umeki is Japanese. My point was and is they are both Asian. A Asian playing a Asian is closer to reality than a Caucasian playing a Asian.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84581
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:22 am    Post subject:

It’s an interesting side question: is a Chinese person playing a Japanese character different than a German playing a Russian?
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB