The Big Picture: Skin Deep

Recommended Videos

honestdiscussioner

New member
Jul 17, 2010
704
0
0
TiefBlau said:
The ideal, theoretically logical thing to do would be to make every role either culturally correct or completely interchangeable. But in practice, the latter ensures that no artistic liberty can be taken that doesn't suit all races (a white Malcolm X?) while the former makes an outstanding number of roles skewed toward the ethnically dominant. The imperfect concession that we make is to allow ethnic minorities to play traditionally white roles, because there just aren't that many roles they're suited for.
I still disagree. If I were to go to a country that was 90% black, and 10% white (somehow through the power of magical hypotheticalness there are no other minorities), I would not start demanding they change roles simply to suit "white people". I also wouldn't demand they keep roles within gender bounds either. I'd demand (or perhaps merely suggest) they go with what works. In the Thor example, it seemed to work quite well. There was nothing about the story that required him to be white, they are magical freakin' gods.

I believe in meritocracy. Roles should be given to whomever can play them the best, irrespective of race. That goes both ways.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
honestdiscussioner said:
Arcane Azmadi said:
honestdiscussioner said:
Am I upset about a black guy being cast in a white role? Nah. Don't care really. ESPECIALLY if he was as awesome as everyone says. I think they are allowed to change a character, especially through if they are modernizing it.

My only issue is that we shouldn't be allowing double standards at all. Sure, slavery was one HELL of a double standard that puts the "movie role" double standard to quintuple shame to the power of infinity, but a lesser injustice is still an injustice, and should not be allowed. Me robbing your store doesn't give you the right to step on my son's foot.

Am I being idealistic? Not exactly, because I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate double standards, or that the only acceptable situation is when there are no double standards, only that we should constantly be aiming for as few as possible. We should not give free passes to a group who was fucked over centuries ago, simply because as long as they get that free pass, we as a society will never truly move on. It will continue to haunt and hurt both sides and I'd prefer we work towards that no longer happening.
Did you miss Bob's point that the massive double standards being used against non-whites STILL EXIST TODAY? Not nearly as bad as they USED to be obviously, but if you'd honestly claim that a black person in modern-day America is in every way equal to a white person, you're deluded.
Umm . . . did you miss the point where I said we shouldn't allow ANY stereotypes or double standards, and that the existence of a double standard against one group does not mean it is okay for there to be a reverse double standard against the other group? You know, "two wrongs don't make a right", basic morality 101 here?
Not at all. You're saying there shouldn't be ANY double standards. I agree. But since there ARE, isn't it better that they balance out on both sides, rather than non-whites being constantly discriminated against while we sit around saying how sad it is?
 

Cali0602

New member
Aug 3, 2008
104
0
0
Another point well spoken (if a bit hurried) by Bob. Now tell me more about these samurai cats...
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
The only thing I have to say is that a Norse god shouldn't be black.

That's like casting a bald guy for the musical Hair,
like casting a man for a girl.

It just doesn't make sense, I couldn't care less about the whole slavery issue.
(Not my fault)
 

Lynxan

New member
Dec 6, 2009
82
0
0
Boy I got in on this one late, and I am not reading 16 pages of replies, so if I'm being repetitive, sorry.

First off, I don't buy any of the "paying for the sins of our fathers" crap. My direct father did a lot of idiotic things that quite honestly I never want associated with, and I sure as hell am not going to right his wrongs, of feel I have to be for the ones that he might have wronged kids or grand-kids. It's idiotic say that the past gives them the right to a double standard. I can feel for them all I want, but when collages lower standards for this, and for what? Slavery itself was ended more then a hundred years ago and while segregation held on far longer then it should have, no one under the age of 40 have much experience in it.

Now I'm not saying that racism is gone, after all, making stealing illegal didn't stop that so thinking someone is going to accept others just because it's not legal. The funny thing is that as I go about my life, I've noticed that at this point there are segments of all the races that have a permanent looking down for other races and I get tired of being the only one that it's considered bad.

As for movies, I do think that diversity isn't a bad thing, especially for ones based on material that started when segregation was still about, or at least the mentality of it was still a lot more common. The examples in the Marvel movies prove this well. Hell, I wasn't one that was bothered overall by the idea of casting a black guy for the Spider Man Reboot. There is a lot of far more important things I think of for a super hero then there race. It's far more important that Spider man is a nerd (well, Peter anyway), Nick Fury is a bad ass and... arg.. can't remember the name of the guy in Thor, but for him, it was that presence of don't mess with me (and alot of that is in the eyes). Those are the traits I think of, not there skin color.

I think that the only time that I'd be bothered by a race change would be if it's a movie about a real person. For an example, I'd be wondering what the hell if they put a black man to play Andy Kaufmen in Man on the Moon, no matter how well they auditioned. I'd say the same if they had a white guy play Ray Stevens in Ray as well. Biography pics should go for what is as close to the subjects that there talking about, and this should include race.

In the end,like said in the video, it's not a perfect world and nothing is going to change it, so it's more just dealing with things as they come.
 

rodain

New member
Jan 22, 2011
12
0
0
rokkolpo said:
The only thing I have to say is that a Norse god shouldn't be black.

That's like casting a bald guy for the musical Hair,
like casting a man for a girl.

It just doesn't make sense, I couldn't care less about the whole slavery issue.
(Not my fault)
gods are depictions - we usually depict them based on ourselves or what we've seen, but unless you've seen six armed blue indians, you'll have to explain shiva for me. and there are things you can do by twisting movies and stories that makes it even more interesting, having a guy take on the role of a girl is actually a perfect example; say: a guy has a roommate, and the roommate is an ex-con, and everything seems a little off about HER... the guy feels like he's in danger and should tell the cops, but the cops tell him to man up; i mean, it's a girl.

by default it doesn't make sense, but having these twists are usually what makes an otherwise generic movie good.

I'm norwegian, read otherwise as scandinavian/norse, and i approve of black gods. the only thing i actually found strange about the movie was the asian guy - purely due to the accent, though.
 

Optimystic

New member
Sep 24, 2008
723
0
0
I agree. Fuck Tyler Perry.

Dude who played Heimdall, thank you for getting yet another one of us out of those cesspit movies.
 

SpoodyGoon

New member
Nov 25, 2009
1
0
0
Did anyone think that maybe the black person in question was the best actor for the job. Look at Michael Clarke Duncan as The Kingpin, I couldn't imagine a better actor for the role. An opinion that has nothing to do with his color.
 

Jackle_666

New member
Feb 23, 2010
129
0
0
I've said it before I'll say it again and I'll say it to my dying day: Perfect casting for Capt. America? Will Smith. Without doubt.

However having said that I don't believe that providing ethnic minorities with an advantage over ethnic majorities in ethical debate is progress. It renders the equality of both races stagnant. It also provides a culture in which ethnic minorities become isolated by their own advantages and where racist minds are provided with the sense of inferiority and exclusion that nurtures and intensifies them.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination and has the same effects on both sides of the coin. And while I agree it may not be a perfect world it won't be unless equality is absolute and universal. Either it's OK for any race to play any role or it isn't at all. We just have to make sure that when when we cast white guys in ethnic roles it isn't part of a larger culture of eliminating diversity from mainstream audiences.
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
Thank god you brought up Friar Tuck, because I would have if you hadn't! He was frigging awesome in the Robin Hood TV series! No white actor could have played him better than David Harewood!

Also, yay for ideal world Pony reference!
 

loodmoney

New member
Apr 25, 2011
179
0
0
I'm not going to contribute much to the discussion here, except to say: thankyou. I now have a great video to point people towards when I get into arguments about "double standards", "reverse racism", "colour-blindness" &c. &c., where people often seem to think that ignoring race will make racism go away.

Just one thing that I think Chipmann should have made more clear: this is not just about what has happened in the past. It is about what is happening today--inequality, oppression &c.--which is in many cases a legacy this past. Reparations for slavery in the U.S. is one thing, fighting inequality is another, more universal thing.
 

ayvee

New member
Jan 29, 2010
107
0
0
How are so many people missing the point of this video? It has absolutely nothing to do with "white guilt."

In any case, excellent video, Bob.
 

DearFilm

New member
Mar 18, 2011
57
0
0
rancher of monsters said:
DearFilm said:
rancher of monsters said:
DearFilm said:
So according to Bob, embracing double standards is the only real way to treat our popular culture's derth of interesting or complex minority characters. So changing a Norse god's race was preferable to creating a new character who is black. Thor had an entire Earth-based realm that was set in modern day America, and yet it was less culturally diverse than Asgard.
This strikes me as a kind of racism in and of itself. It is as though you do not trust minorities or those who write them to create a new and unique character on their own, so you have to "gift" them characters who have already been created. You are allowing them to "prove" their racial equity only through the appropriation of another race's character. It's like if a black African chef wanted to prove his worth in a French kitchen, but rather than let him make his own recipe, gave him a recipe already perfected by a white French cook. This betrays an astounding amount of condescention on the part of anyone who argues this way.
Honestly, some characters can be changed and can benefit from said change in the long run. I think Spider-Man as a young black kid from Queens makes a lot of sense and could be interesting because this is the real world, and that character is set to reflect modern ideas and experience. A Norse god, however, seems to resist this change. Instead, we should be trying to create characters grounded in a racial identity, so "appropriation" instead becomes "creation."
I do like parts of your arguement, but I think we'll have to wait a while for any new substantial ethnic characters in the realm of comics, and I tell you why. Many of the most famous comic book characters, the ones the cartoons and movies are made from, are very old, the youngest about thirty years. many of them predate even the earliest days of racial sensitivity, and DC has been known to have vocal racist (as in, edit background characters so that they were white, moved all black people in the universe he wrote in to a segragated island, racist) writing characters. When the first batches of ethnic characters came around in the 70's they were laughable stereotypes, such as Apache Cheif (who's power had nothing to do with his name or Native American garb), The Samurai (who's powers had nothing to do with his name or somewhat Japanese clothing), Black Vulcan (Insert smae bullshit here), and El Dorado (See before). Marvel did better at times, but they were still far from perfect. The Falcon, was a pimp or something at one point and Luke Cage was a jive-talking mercenary.

Now Marvel and DC both hold a major monopoly on the heroes we are introduced to. And it's highly unlikley that they are going to hire ethnic writers solely for the purpose of writing ethinic characters. While minorities could start their own publishing companies to write ethnic characters, that doesn't seem like an idea that is going to do well to me. So for now we're basically stuck with hopeing that whatever white guy (I'm sure they do occasionally have enthic writers, but for the most part, this) is writing are characters at the moment has some racial awareness, and isn't a secret member of the klan.

Now on the subject of Norse Gods, three points can be made. One, nobody is really worshipping Odin anymore, so how upset can we be? It's not like they made Budhha an Inuit Eskimo or turned Jesus gay? Two, Heimdall, to my knowledge, was something of a minor character, I had never heard of him before the controversy, and he only get's about ten minutes of screen time anyway. Three, the Norse gods, as depicted by Marvel, are ALIENS. does it really matter what their norse creators pictured them to be when we've already reduced them to aliens?
My issue, I suppose, is that I don't think we should be writing for minorities, I think we should just be writing them. Pandering and condescending are not the answer here. We need real characters, grounded and informed by their own racial identity, not by the supposed identity of those we want to buy their comics.

My concern about the gods is that they are now members not only of a godly pantheon, but of a historical canon. I actually wrote a massive essay about this for my personal web site. I would link to it, but I have been yelled about posting links on this forum before, so you can just click my name to go to the site and look for it.

As for the aliens thing... I often try not to think about that. It brings up all kinds of biological questions I don't think I have the answers to involving romances like those with Louis Lane and Jane Foster.
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't writing minority characters. In a perfect world (Insert Ponies) we would be , but for now my choices are either the pandering that you refer to, which I wouldn't label all of it as such, or next to nothing. Some people are writing good minority characters, Generator Rex is one of my favorite cartoons and it stars a hispanic teenager, but many are not, so people are taking what they can get.

I did read parts of your article, but I missed what you might refer to as historical canon. I'm assuming that it's do to the connection between the Norse people and their supposedly (I don't know if they made pictures of or had racially descriptive stories of them) gods. But seeing as we are discussing a myth within a myth (Inception) I'm not sure how seriously we can take it from a historical standpoint.

Also, you have to think about the alien thing, it's at least as big, if not a bigger, a part of this conversation, and marvel canon. Still, it's funny how people will ignore their extraterrestial status, but become philosophical when it comes to their 'race'.
I suppose my main argument in this is that instead of spending energy changing characters, we should spend energy creating them. As I said, on Earth there was one black character, who only served as a brief fighting foe. This was a great opportunity to create and introduce a new and interesting character to the Marvel universe.

My initial statement regarding aliens was more of a joke, and I actually had wished they would talk more about this.

For instance, we have aliens that look human, eat foods named after and resembling human food, and who ride horses. Did they take these things from earth for their home world, or did they bring them to earth as gifts? Or are they a parallel yet advanced form of humanity?

These are questions the movie should have better answered or addressed, rather than just giving us more paper-thin SHIELD stuff.

Also, hope you found the article at least not-terrible.
 

DearFilm

New member
Mar 18, 2011
57
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
DearFilm said:
So according to Bob, embracing double standards is the only real way to treat our popular culture's derth of interesting or complex minority characters. So changing a Norse god's race was preferable to creating a new character who is black. Thor had an entire Earth-based realm that was set in modern day America, and yet it was less culturally diverse than Asgard.
This strikes me as a kind of racism in and of itself. It is as though you do not trust minorities or those who write them to create a new and unique character on their own, so you have to "gift" them characters who have already been created. You are allowing them to "prove" their racial equity only through the appropriation of another race's character. It's like if a black African chef wanted to prove his worth in a French kitchen, but rather than let him make his own recipe, gave him a recipe already perfected by a white French cook. This betrays an astounding amount of condescention on the part of anyone who argues this way.
Honestly, some characters can be changed and can benefit from said change in the long run. I think Spider-Man as a young black kid from Queens makes a lot of sense and could be interesting because this is the real world, and that character is set to reflect modern ideas and experience. A Norse god, however, seems to resist this change. Instead, we should be trying to create characters grounded in a racial identity, so "appropriation" instead becomes "creation."
As a comic book fan, AND someone who is incredibly adverse to changes (Often the smallest incongruities between a book/comic and movie is enough to downright piss me off; it's just me), I'd much rather have a inconsequential character have a race lift rather than an entirely new character introduced into a years-long continuity.
So did you take umbridge with the inclusion of Lucius Fox or Rachel in The Dark Knight?
 

SanguineSymphony

New member
Jan 25, 2011
177
0
0
I think changing the race "just because" is silly in all forms. I don't like when a cast is white washed any more than when the change one character to token black dude. I have no interest in making up for my ancestors bullshit. I have enough of my own to deal with.

I did like Sam Jackson as Fury but I think doing the same thing with an Norse God is imbecilic and slightly more offensive. I do tend to take Classic Mythology more seriously than others and as such am not likely to see Thor anyway.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
Father Time said:
Brinnmilo said:
JDKJ said:
Father Time said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
I was born after slavery, Jim Crow, etc and I reject the idea that I owe some sort of historical debt.
If you're white and American, then you benefit from that history of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Why shouldn't you owe a debt?
Because I didn't do anything. The fact that I benefited is not my fault and I cannot make the benefits go away.
JDKJ said:
You're benefiting at the expense of others.
You could argue that all of humanity benefited from slaves (not just African slaves, but any slave going back to ancient times).
No, but you can (a) recognize the fact that you have benefited and (b) don't claim that you don't owe that benefit to the burden of others.
JDKJ you are surely a troll. I bet you are sat there right now with your gleaming troll face smile, nice and fat from all the feeding that every one has given you this evening?

(a) He did recognise that he benefited - "The fact that I benefited"

(b) He actually went so far in the other direction to what you claim he is claiming... right that is hard to understand. To clarify, you seem to think that he doesn't think he owes any one for the "benefit" when in fact he says that every one owes the "benefits" to every one. He transcends the whole Black & White relationship extending the "racism and slavery is bad" to a much wider spectrum of social status and race. - "You could argue that all of humanity benefited from slaves (not just African slaves, but any slave going back to ancient times)"
I do not think I owe anyone for slavery (since I'm not a slaveowner and I never fought to keep slavery legal etc.). However if we're going to start doing this why stop at African slaves? Why not go back to the slaves of ancient times?
It's not that simple. If you're white and American, the long and, arguably, still continuing history of repression and oppression of racial minorities by the white majority better positions you to compete for scare resources and opportunities (e.g., schools, jobs, etc.) than the minorities who have historically been kept from the field of competition.
1. Yes but that is different from slavery, yet slavery is still invoked as a debt that all white people share.

2. Also in the past, before my time. That is last millennium's business. Not my responsibility.
No need to repeat yourself. I long ago understood your position on the matter and had stopped responding to you.
#1 is not repetition and a continuation from discussion from previous posts. You said I benefited from slavery, but what describe above is distinct from slavery.
Actually, what I said from the very get-go is "slavery, Jim Crow, etc." Which speaks to a historical continuum that extends beyond slavery (the Jim Crow era post-dates the era of slavery) and one that arguably continues to this day. It doesn't neatly stop at just slavery nor did anything I said attempt to limit it to just slavery. You're the one attempting to end the history of racial oppression and marginalization at slavery. So you can neatly say "that was yesterday, it's got nothing to do with me today." And, frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, I can't be bothered discussing the issue with you.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Okay for one, why the hell is Tyler Perry hated? Why?
Because he sucks at what he does? Have you seen "For Colored Girls?" If not, I'd advise that you don't.
 

Kartoffelmos

New member
Feb 8, 2010
21
0
0
I'm Norwegian, and I'm not angry that a black man was casted as Heimdall as I don't really care about the movie, but I do find the choice extremely odd. In norse mythology (and I can only speak for the mythology itself as I haven't read the source material of the film), Heimdall is referred to as "the whitest of the Gods". His name translates to "The one who illuminates the world". Every depiction of him ever has been a white man. Having a black norse God is just not done, it's not logical when thinking about how this is an old Scandinavian belief. It's just silly. So why the change? For political correctness? To make up for crimes this generation was not actually a part of? Or just because hey, why not? It seems rather unnecessary and weird that they would make that kind of choice.